Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

976 So. 2d 1165

Docket No. 5D07-3953.

Worlo v. State

Sloan M. WORLO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2008-03-14

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 2008

1 state decisions

Relies on Spera v. State · 598 So. 2d 1063 - Smith v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2008-03-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*1166 Sloan M. Worlo, Lake City, pro se.

¶2Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Brigid E. Collins, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Sloan M. Worlo, appearing pro se, appeals the trial court's order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. All claims were correctly denied as facially insufficient. However, the Florida Supreme Court has recently ruled that a defendant who files a legally insufficient rule 3.850 motion should be given at least one opportunity to correct the deficiency, unless it is apparent that the defect cannot be corrected. See Spera v. State,971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007), reh'g denied, No. SC06-1304 (Fla. Dec. 26, 2007). Although the trial court denied Worlo's motion prior to the issuance of Spera, this case was in the appellate "pipeline" when Spera was decided. Therefore, Spera applies. See Smith v. State,598 So.2d 1063, 1065-66 (Fla.1992). Worlo should be given a "reasonable period" to amend. Spera,971 So.2d at 761. Accordingly, we reverse the court's denial of Worlo's motion and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶5REVERSED AND REMANDED.

¶6PALMER, C.J., PLEUS and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

/976/so2d/1165 · .json · Public domain