From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Prucha v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Mar 1, 2013
108 So. 3d 721 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

Opinion

No. 5D12–1636.

2013-03-1

Bradley PRUCHA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County, Don F. Briggs, Judge. Bradley Prucha, Crestview, pro se. Pamela Jo Bond, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Wesley Heidt and Anthony J. Golden, Assistant Attorneys General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.


3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County, Don F. Briggs, Judge.
Bradley Prucha, Crestview, pro se. Pamela Jo Bond, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Wesley Heidt and Anthony J. Golden, Assistant Attorneys General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of Appellant's rule 3.850 motion in all respects except that the trial court should have afforded Appellant the opportunity to amend claims 3 and 4, which pertain to the contention that trial counsel failed to investigate and inform Appellant about the viability of a motion to suppress evidence. Inartful and legally insufficient as the claims might be, we cannot say that Appellant cannot state a legally sufficient claim. Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 758 (Fla.2007).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

TORPY, EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Prucha v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Mar 1, 2013
108 So. 3d 721 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)
Case details for

Prucha v. State

Case Details

Full title:Bradley PRUCHA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Date published: Mar 1, 2013

Citations

108 So. 3d 721 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)