Prince v. State

The state concedes that the trial court should have allowed the appellant to amend his first postconviction motion, deemed facially insufficient by the trial court, rather than denying it. See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007). The state further concedes that the trial court should have considered the three new claims submitted in an amended motion because the trial court had not yet ruled on the original motion. See Hyacinthe v. State, 940 So.2d 1280, 1281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (stating that “[A] 3.850 movant has the right to amend or supplement a motion at any time within the two-year…