Smith v. State

Fabian Smith appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his “motion for clarification.” In the motion, Smith raised a legally sufficient ground for postconviction relief as he alleged the trial court failed to impose concurrent sentences against him, as specified both in Smith’s plea agreement and the court’s oral statements. However, Smith did not state in his motion that he was seeking relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, nor did he include in his motion the information required by 3.850(c). Thus, Smith’s motion was facially insufficient.

The trial court’s…