Court Opinion

ID: 4863009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-26 01:57:27.748949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:03.229907
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
The trial court summarily denied Appellant’s motion without attaching records or providing reasons. Perhaps the trial court believed the motion was successive because of the way Appellant labeled his motion. It is neither successive nor untimely. It is facially insufficient, however, but Appellant should have been given an opportunity to amend the motion. Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007). The State properly concedes error.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SAWAYA, TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.