Court Opinion

ID: 9953503
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 13:02:44.026369+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:00.359665
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                      Case No. 5D23-2943
                 LT Case Nos. 2018-CF-000073
                              2018-CF-000074
                 _____________________________

DONALD EUGENE REYBURN,

    Appellant,

    v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hernando County.
Stephen E. Toner, Jr., Judge.

Donald Eugene Reyburn, Bushnell, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Stephen R.
Putnam, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for
Appellee.

                        March 22, 2024

HARRIS, J.

     Donald Eugene Reyburn timely challenges the postconviction
court’s summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief
pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Reyburn
alleged two grounds for relief. In ground A, he alleged that the
government engaged in misconduct by not filing and/or providing
him with the probable cause affidavit to support the search
warrant of his home, the search warrant, the search warrant
return, and log of items seized during execution of the search
warrant. In ground B, Reyburn alleged that his trial counsel was
ineffective because he refused to investigate and compel the trial
court to make available to him the probable cause affidavit to
support the search warrant, the search warrant return, and log of
items seized so he could file a motion to suppress the evidence
seized during the execution of the search and used to charge him
with crimes.

    The postconviction court denied Reyburn’s motion on the
merits. On ground A, it found Reyburn’s claim was not cognizable
under rule 3.850. On ground B, it found Reyburn failed to
demonstrate prejudice. Reyburn timely filed a motion for
rehearing, arguing that the postconviction court should not have
denied his motion on the merits but should have allowed him to
amend his claims. The postconviction court denied the motion for
rehearing.

     The postconviction court did not err when it denied ground A
because the alleged government misconduct could not be amended
into a viable claim under rule 3.850. See King v. State, 230 So. 3d
179, 180–81 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). However, we agree with Reyburn
that the postconviction court erred when it denied ground B
because it was a potentially viable claim. Because the motion was
timely filed, contained a potentially viable claim, and Reyburn had
not previously been given an opportunity to amend, Reyburn
should have been given the opportunity to amend this claim to
show that he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s inactions. See Minix
v. State, 259 So. 3d 927, 929 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (holding that
defendant should have been given opportunity to amend his rule
3.850 motion to allege the requisite prejudice required under Hill
v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985)) (citing Fla. R. Crim. P.
3.850(f)(2) & Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754, 761 (Fla. 2007)).

    We therefore affirm the denial of ground A but reverse and
remand the denial of ground B for the postconviction court to allow
Reyburn to amend.

                                2
    AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, REMANDED.

EISNAUGLE and SOUD, JJ., concur.

                _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

                              3