Opinion ID: 1771466
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: amended 3.850 motion

Text: Gaskin contends the trial court erred in denying his amended 3.850 motion on the ground that the new claims in the amendment were procedurally barred as if the amendment were a successive motion. [18] While we agree, we find the error harmless. Rule 3.850 permits trial courts to dismiss [a] second or successive motion ... if new and different grounds are alleged, [and] the judge finds that the failure of the movant or the attorney to assert those grounds in a prior motion constituted an abuse of the procedure governed by these rules. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(f). The 1993 version of rule 3.850 further stated that except for limited reasons [n]o ... motion shall be filed or considered pursuant to this rule if filed more than 2 years after the judgment and sentence become final. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b) (1992). However, the rule does not address amendments to a timely filed motion pursuant to the rule. Here, the record indicates that Gaskin filed an initial rule 3.850 motion in March 1995, almost eight months prior to the two-year statutory period within which to file such motions. Before the trial court ruled on the original motion and before the termination of the statutory time limit, Gaskin filed an amended motion asserting five new allegations. Thus, both the original and amended 3.850 motions were filed within the statutory two-year time limitation. Under these circumstances, it was error for the trial court not to consider the merits of the new allegations. However, we find this error harmless in light of the fact the trial court correctly found that several of the new allegations were procedurally barred for reasons other than the failure to raise them in the original motion. [19]