Case ID: so3d_205/html/0882-02.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

Christine Lynn HIPPLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-2501
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Opinion filed December 16, 2016
    
      Christine Lynn Hippier, Ocala, pro se.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Ap-pellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Christine Lynn Hippier appeals the summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court denied relief, concluding the motion was improperly successive. Because the record before this Court does not conclusively show that Hippier is not entitled to relief, we reverse.

A motion for postconviction relief may be denied as improperly successive if the prior determination of insufficiency was made on the merits of the claim. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(h)(2). “[Successive motions for postconviction relief are procedurally barred only when a prior motion for post-conviction relief was adjudicated on the merits and not when the previous motion was summarily denied or dismissed for legal or procedural insufficiency.” Hutto v. State, 981 So.2d 1236, 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Unless the alleged basis for relief has been adjudicated on its merits, the court must either hold an evidentiary hearing or attach, in support of the denial, portions of the record conclusively showing that the defendant is not entitled to relief. Tompkins v. State, 872 So.2d 230, 238 (Fla.2003).

From the limited record before us, Hip-pler’s previous rule 3.850 motion(s) were dismissed as vague and too lengthy. Since the denial of Hippler’s earlier motions were for pleading deficiencies, the trial court erred in determining that the current motion was successive. See Greene v. State, 200 So.3d 102, 103-04 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). We express no opinion on the merits of Hippler’s claim.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

LAWSON, C.J., ORFINGER and BERGER, JJ., concur.