Johnson v. State

Jermaine Johnson appeals from the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief, which Johnson alleges is based upon newly-discovered evidence. As the State properly concedes on appeal, the trial court should not have denied the motion on its merits; rather, given the facial insufficiency of the motion, the trial court should have entered a nonfi-nal, nonappeable order dismissing the motion and allowing Johnson sixty days within which to file an amended motion. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2); White v. State, 116 So.3d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

' We therefore…