Ramkhelawan v. State

Defendant filed a rule 3.850 motion, which was summarily denied for lack of a valid oath. On appeal, we found that Defendant was entitled to have leave to amend under Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007), and we reversed and remanded *525four of the claims. See Ramkhalawan v. State, 50 So.3d 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).1 A month after Defendant filed his amended motion on remand, he moved for leave to supplement the pending amended motion by adding a new claim. The trial court denied the motion for leave to supplement while the other four claims were still pending. Defendant now appeals the…