Smith v. State

8 Citing cases

  1. Reynolds v. State

    No. 2D22-3834 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2023)

    Smith v. State, 100 So.3d 201, 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

  2. James v. State

    185 So. 3d 649 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

    James argues that while his second amended motion admittedly did not contain the required certification that he understands English, this was a technical error because his original motion and his pro se motion both contained a certification that he can read English. James contends that he should not be procedurally barred from having his motion heard on the merits when he substantially complied with rule 3.850(n)(2) and the postconviction court had previously been notified that he can read and write English. In support of his argument, James cites Smith v. State, 100 So.3d 201, 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), in which the postconviction court struck Smith's original motion for failure to contain an oath and gave him thirty days to amend. Smith's amended motion also failed to contain an oath, and the court summarily denied it.

  3. Brown v. Fla. Attorney Gen.

    Case No: 2:13-cv-602-FtM-29MRM (M.D. Fla. Sep. 28, 2016)

    To the contrary, in Green, the district court discussed a Rule 3.850 motion that was stricken for facial insufficiency noting that under Florida law it remained unclear whether a motion stricken for facial insufficiency was appealable. Id. at *2 (emphasis added) (citing Howard v. State, 978 So. 2d 635, 636 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Smith v. State, 100 So. 3d 201, 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)). The instant case is distinguishable from Green.

  4. Green v. Tucker

    Case No. 2:12-cv-17-FtM-99SPC (M.D. Fla. Jan. 29, 2013)

    Consequently, under Florida law, it is unclear whether the post-conviction court's December 11, 2008 order was an appealable order. See Howard v. State, 976 So.2d 635, 636 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Smith v. State, 100 So. 3d 201, 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). Irrespective of whether the December 12, 2008 order was a final order and subject to appeal is not relevant to whether Petitioner had a post-conviction motion pending for AEDPA purposes. More specifically, Petitioner is only entitled to tolling when "a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending. . . ."

  5. Blattner v. State

    321 So. 3d 371 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)

    Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court's order and remand for that court to afford Blattner an opportunity to substantiate his claim that he did not receive the order striking his rule 3.801 motion with leave to amend and, if Blattner is successful, to grant Blattner leave to file an amended rule 3.801 motion if he can do so in good faith. SeeSmith v. State , 100 So. 3d 201, 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) ("Postconviction relief proceedings must provide meaningful access to the judicial process, ... and resolution of a case on the merits is preferred." (citing Kokal v. State , 901 So. 2d 766, 777 (Fla. 2005) )).

  6. Hand v. State

    315 So. 3d 774 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)

    We will not extend Woods to excuse a failure to comply with the substantive requirements of the rule. We are cognizant of the second district's decision in Smith v. State , 100 So. 3d 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), but that case is of no assistance to Hand either. In Smith , the postconviction court granted the movant leave to amend a deficient oath, and then summarily denied the movant's amended motion when the oath remained deficient. 100 So. 3d at 201.

  7. Woods v. State

    294 So. 3d 423 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times
    In Woods, we reversed the summary denial of a postconviction motion because the only deficiency in that case was that the movant listed the wrong case number in the motion.

    Although we understand the postconviction court's frustration with Woods, "resolution of a case on its merits is preferred and postconviction relief proceedings must provide meaningful access to the judicial process." James v. State, 185 So. 3d 649, 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (citing Smith v. State, 100 So. 3d 201, 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) ). Under these circumstances, we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to address the merits of Woods's claim.

  8. Johnson v. State

    205 So. 3d 814 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

    This court based its decision on the principles that "resolution of a case on its merits is preferred and postconviction relief proceedings must provide meaningful access to the judicial process." Id. (citing Smith v. State, 100 So.3d 201, 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) ).These principles apply even more to the present appeal because Johnson's second motion stated a facially sufficient claim for in-state jail credit.