EDDIE v. STATE (2018)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Douglas EDDIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17–2153

Decided: January 10, 2018

Douglas Eddie, Crawfordville, pro se. No brief filed for appellee.

We reverse and remand the order denying appellant's rule 3.850 motion because it was error for the trial court to summarily deny the motion “without explanation, without ordering a state response, and with no record attachments.” Thompson v. State, 202 So.3d 927, 928 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

The State contends that the motion is legally insufficient and the trial court's order should be affirmed without prejudice. However, to the extent the denial of the motion was based on its legal insufficiency, the trial court erred by failing to provide appellant an opportunity to file an amended motion. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2); see Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 761 (Fla. 2007); Nottage v. State, 61 So.3d 1231, 1232–33 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Per Curiam.

Gross, Taylor and Forst, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network