COY LEE COLEMAN, v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA COY LEE COLEMAN, Appellant, v. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D12-5526 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________/ Opinion filed March 28, 2013. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. W. Joel Boles, Judge. Coy Lee Coleman, pro se, Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Brittany Ann Rhodaback, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Appellant seeks review of the trial court s order dismissing with prejudice his untimely, successive motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He contends that, pursuant to Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 1 754 (Fla. 2007), the trial court was required to give him an opportunity to correct the pleading deficiency in his motion and allow him to plead an exception to the time limit for seeking postconviction relief. We find no merit in this argument because Spera only requires a trial court to accept an untimely amended motion when an initial, timely rule 3.850 motion is dismissed after the two-year filing deadline has expired. Id. at 761 (explaining that the court was closing a gap in rule 3.850 that precluded defendants whose initial postconviction motions were dismissed after the deadline from filing an amended or successive motion, and holding that when a defendant s initial rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief is determined to be legally insufficient for failure to meet either the rule s or other pleading requirements, the trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to allow the defendant at least one opportunity to amend the motion ) (emphasis added). Here, it is undisputed that Appellant s initial rule 3.850 motion was denied on the merits (and affirmed on appeal) and that his current motion was filed more than two years after his judgment and sentence became final. Because Spera has no application in these circumstances, the trial court properly dismissed Appellant s motion with prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. WETHERELL, ROWE, and MARSTILLER, JJ., CONCUR. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
