Smith v. State
The Fourth District affirmed the denial of a rule 3.850 motion, but Judge Warner wrote separately to address the State's practice of refusing to brief the merits of summarily-denied postconviction claims in appeals governed by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(3), where an evidentiary hearing was held on at least one claim. She distinguished such appeals from those under 9.141(b)(2)(C), where briefing is optional and the court may request a State response, and agreed with the First District's Cuomo v. State that the State forfeits its right to respond to a claim it fails to brief in a 9.141(b)(3) appeal.
Key facts
- Smith appealed the denial of a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 postconviction motion to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- An evidentiary hearing was held on at least one of Smith's postconviction claims, triggering appellate briefing requirements under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(3).
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
Although only a concurring opinion, this decision puts the State on notice in the Fourth District that failing to substantively address summarily-denied claims in a 9.141(b)(3) postconviction appeal—where an evidentiary… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.