Smith v. State
100 So. 3d 201
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Smith appeals a ruling denying his amended Rule 3.850 postconviction motion for relief.
- The postconviction court struck his original motion for failure to include an oath and gave 30 days to amend.
- Smith amended but the amendment again lacked the required oath.
- Smith then filed a rehearing with the amended motion containing a signed oath; the court denied rehearing.
- The court also dismissed the amended motion as successive, without addressing merits.
- This sequence constitutes an abuse of discretion because cured deficiencies warrant merits review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion by not addressing merits after cure. | Smith cured the deficiency and preserved merits review. | Court properly dismissed as successive without merits review. | Merits review required; reversal and remand. |
| Whether the amended motion cured under Rule 3.850(c) and timely filed. | Cure occurred via rehearing with proper oath within time. | Untimely or improper cure; dismissal proper. | Court should address merits on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Piper v. State, 21 So.3d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (tolerance for amended motions missing minor form defects)
- Lawrence v. State, 987 So.2d 157 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (district court may reach merits when amendment is substantial)
- Al-Hakim v. State, 87 So.3d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (substantial compliance warrants merits review)
- Washington v. State, 70 So.3d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (rehearing cures deficiency under 3.850)
- Golden v. State, 509 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (rehearing supplied missing information to meet substantial compliance)
- Kokal v. State, 901 So.2d 766 (Fla.2005) (meaningful access; resolve on merits when cured)