Case Name: Joan Marie HEADLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2016-02-03
Citations: 201 So. 3d 653
Docket Number: No. 3D15-2570
Parties: Joan Marie HEADLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before SUAREZ, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LOGUE, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 201
Pages: 653–654

Head Matter:
Joan Marie HEADLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 3D15-2570.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Feb. 3, 2016.
Joan Marie Headley, in proper person.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SUAREZ, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LOGUE, JJ.

Opinion:
SUAREZ, C.J.
On July 18, 2013 Joan Marie Headley timely filed a motion for post-conviction relief. On December 12, 2014 the trial court entered an Order in which she was granted 60 days within which to amend the claims raised in grounds 1 and 2B of her motion. That Order directed the state to respond to one claim and denied all other grounds. The state eventually provided the ordered response. On October 2, 2015, after noting that Headley had failed to amend her claims, the trial court denied her remaining claims.
In this appeal, Headley claims that she did not receive notice of the December 2014 Order directing her to amend the claims made in grounds 1 and 2B of her motion and that she ought to be provided the opportunity to amend those claims. Consistent with the ruling in Jones v. State, 88 So.3d 998 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), we think that in these unusual circumstances it is appropriate to provide Headley with the opportunity to amend her claims made in grounds 1 and 2B to attempt to state viable claims. Accordingly, we affirm both the December 14, 2014 Order and the October 2, 2015 Order, but do so without prejudice to Headley to amend solely the claims made in grounds 1 and 2B of her motion within 30 days of the date that this opinion becomes final. If Headley files the amended motion as directed in this opinion, it shall not be considered successive. The rulings as to all other claims are affirmed.