MALTESE v. STATE (2021)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.2021-10-01No. Case No. 5D21-927

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the summary denial of five claims for postconviction relief but reversed the summary denial of claim three and remanded the case to allow Maltese an opportunity to amend her insufficiently pleaded ineffective assistance of counsel claim within sixty days.

Amber Maltese appealed a trial court's summary denial of her postconviction relief motion filed under Florida's criminal procedure rules. She presented six separate claims for postconviction relief, arguing various errors in her case. The appellate court agreed with the trial court's rejection of most claims, but identified a defect in one claim that could potentially be corrected.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether summary denial of postconviction relief claims was appropriate
Whether a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was sufficiently pleaded when it failed to identify a specific viable defense
Whether a party should be afforded an opportunity to amend deficient postconviction pleadings

Procedural posture

Maltese appealed a trial court's summary denial of her pro se motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Amber Maltese appeals an order summarily denying her pro se motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Maltese raised six claims for postconviction relief, including a claim of cumulative error. We affirm without further discussion the summary denial of all claims, with the exception of claim three. As to that claim, because we find it insufficiently pled, we reverse the order in part and remand to allow Maltese to amend.

In claim three, Maltese argued that her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present a viable defense but did not indicate the specific defense that counsel could have raised. While Malteses claim as drafted is legally insufficient, it is not apparent from the record that the defect cannot be corrected. Because she has not previously sought or been given leave to amend her motion, and because the pleading deficiency in claim three is correctable, Maltese should have been given at least one opportunity to amend her claim. Lamb v. State, 202 So. 3d 118 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).

We therefore reverse the summary denial of claim three and remand with directions that the postconviction court provide Maltese with sixty days to amend this claim if, in good faith, she can do so.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

HARRIS, J.

EISNAUGLE and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.