Case ID: so3d_233/html/1154-01.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

Douglas EDDIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2153
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 10, 2018]
    Douglas Eddie, Crawfordville, pro se.
    No brief filed for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

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.

Gross, Taylor and Forst, JJ., concur.