Case ID: so3d_108/html/0721-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bradley PRUCHA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 5D12-1636.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    March 1, 2013.
    Bradley Prucha, Crestview, pro se.
    Pamela Jo Bond, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Wesley Heidt and Anthony J. Golden, Assistant Attorneys General, Day-tona Beach, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of Appellant’s rule 3.850 motion in all respects except that the trial court should have afforded Appellant the opportunity to amend claims 3 and 4, which pertain to the contention that trial counsel failed to investigate and inform Appellant about the viability of a motion to suppress evidence. Inartful and legally insufficient as the claims might be, we cannot say that Appellant cannot state a legally sufficient claim. Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 758 (Fla.2007).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

TORPY, EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur.