Filed: Nov. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED TRAVIOUS D. MOZIE, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D17-882 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed December 1, 2017 3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, James H. Earp, Judge. Travious D. Mozie, Crawfordville, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Dayton
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED TRAVIOUS D. MOZIE, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D17-882 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed December 1, 2017 3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, James H. Earp, Judge. Travious D. Mozie, Crawfordville, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona..
More
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
TRAVIOUS D. MOZIE,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D17-882
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed December 1, 2017
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Brevard County,
James H. Earp, Judge.
Travious D. Mozie, Crawfordville, pro se.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire,
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona
Beach, for Appellee.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
In consideration of Appellee's October 31, 2017 motion for rehearing or clarification
and Appellant's November 15, 2017 motion for rehearing, we deny Appellant's motion,
grant Appellee's requested relief, withdraw our prior opinion, and substitute this opinion
in its stead.
Appellant appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
3.850 motion for postconviction relief, arguing the trial court erred in summarily denying
all seven of his claims without granting him an opportunity to amend them. We find that
the record conclusively refutes claims 1, 2, 3, and 6 and affirm their summary denial.
Because we find that claims 4 and 5 are facially insufficient, we reverse and remand for
the trial court to afford Appellant an opportunity to amend the claims. See Spera v. State,
971 So. 2d 754, 761 (Fla. 2007). Accordingly, we further reverse the denial of claim 7,
which alleged cumulative error, and order the trial court to address the claim on remand.
AFFIRMED in Part; REVERSED and REMANDED in Part.
LAMBERT, WALLIS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
2