oath requirement in Florida

2013Groover v. State, 703 So.2d 1035, 1038 (Fla.1997) (affirming dismissal of unverified amended motion); Anderson v. State, 627 So.2d 1170, 1171 (Fla.1993).

2000See Anderson v. State, 627 So.2d 1170, 1171 (Fla.1993).

2023The motion must include the certifications required by subdivision (n) of this rule . . . .” (emphasis added)); see also Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754, 762 (Fla. 2007) (“[R]ule 3.850 . . . require[s] that defendants file [a] postconviction motion[] under oath and penalty of perjury that all the facts alleged are true.”); State v. Shearer, 628 So. 2d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 1993) (requiring that the oath under rule 3.850 provide, with no qualifying language, that movant makes the required certifications “under penalty of perjury”).

2022Additionally, the Florida Supreme Court has held that “the unnotarized oath from subsection 92.525(2) [can] be used in a rule 3.850 motion.” State v. Shearer, 628 So. 2d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 1993); see also Hyden v. State, 117 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (“The Florida Supreme Court has determined that the oath set forth in section 92.525(2) is sufficient to satisfy the oath requirement in postconviction motions.

2007See Groover v. State, 703 So.2d 1035, 1038 (Fla.1997) (“Failure to meet the oath requirement warrants dismissal of the motion without prejudice.”); see also Desouza v. State, 874 So.2d 729, 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (citing Groover and concluding that the trial court properly ruled that the defendant who had failed to sign and swear his post-conviction motion should be afforded an opportunity to refile).

2004See Groover v. State, 703 So.2d 1035, 1038 (Fla.1997)(finding that the "[f]ailure to meet the oath requirement [under rule 3.850(c)] warrants dismissal of the motion without prejudice"); Weisman v. State, 651 So.2d 148, 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)(where the trial court denied the defendant's belated appeal pursuant to rule 3.850 because it was not made under oath, finding that "the trial court should have afforded [the defendant] an opportunity to refile a properly sworn motion for belated appeal").

1994Scott v. State, 464 So.2d 1171 (Fla. 1985).

1993Both Scott and Gorham filed postconviction motions with edited oaths, not the oath in rule 3.987, containing the caveat "that the allegations and statements contained" in the motion "are true and correct to the best of his knowledge." Scott, 464 So.2d at 1172 ; Gorham, 494 So.2d at 212 .

2022Additionally, the Florida Supreme Court has held that “the unnotarized oath from subsection 92.525(2) [can] be used in a rule 3.850 motion.” State v. Shearer, 628 So. 2d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 1993); see also Hyden v. State, 117 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (“The Florida Supreme Court has determined that the oath set forth in section 92.525(2) is sufficient to satisfy the oath requirement in postconviction motions.

2016Additionally, the Florida Supreme Court has held that “the unnotarized oath from subsection 92.525(2) [can] be used in a rule 3.850 motion.” State v. Shearer, 628 So.2d 1102, 1103 (Fla.1993); see also Hyden v. State, 117 So.3d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (“The Florida Supreme Court has determined that the oath set forth in section 92.525(2) is sufficient to satisfy the oath requirement in postconviction motions.

1993Both Scott and Gorham filed postconviction motions with edited oaths, not the oath in rule 3.987, containing the caveat "that the allegations and statements contained" in the motion "are true and correct to the best of his knowledge." Scott, 464 So.2d at 1172 ; Gorham, 494 So.2d at 212 .

1993In Gorham v. State, 494 So.2d 211, 212 (Fla. 1986), we described how a prisoner represented by counsel can satisfy the oath requirement in a rule 3.850 motion to alleviate our concern about the use of false allegations in motions for postconviction relief.

2023The motion must include the certifications required by subdivision (n) of this rule . . . .” (emphasis added)); see also Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754, 762 (Fla. 2007) (“[R]ule 3.850 . . . require[s] that defendants file [a] postconviction motion[] under oath and penalty of perjury that all the facts alleged are true.”); State v. Shearer, 628 So. 2d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 1993) (requiring that the oath under rule 3.850 provide, with no qualifying language, that movant makes the required certifications “under penalty of perjury”).

2017See Brantley v. State, 32 So.3d 89, 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (noting that the time to seek relief under rule 3.850 had- not yet run and that the motion contained the oath required by the rule).

2017As we explained in Blocker, although the evidence that the postconviction court cited in its order denying Jackson’s rule 3.800(a) motion provided a reasonable basis to conclude that a factual question existed with regard to the trial court’s oral pronouncement, “such postconviction disputes can be resolved only after an evidentiary hearing.” Blocker, 968 So.2d at 693-94 ; see also Brantley, 32 So.3d at 90 (stating that “[a] careful examination of the record reveals a reasonable basis to question the accuracy of the transcript of the sentencing hearing, thus creating a disputed issue of fact”

2016See Groover v. State, 703 So.2d 1035, 1038 (Fla.1997); Welch v. State, 946 So.2d 649, 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

2014See Anderson v. State, 67 So.3d 1180, 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

2013In Carter v. State, 706 So.2d 873, 875 (Fla.1997), we recognized a limited exception to the oath requirement when collateral counsel has a good faith belief that a death-sentenced prisoner is incompetent to proceed in a postconviction proceeding in which factual matters are at issue and the development or resolution of those issues will require the defendant’s input.

2007See Groover v. State, 703 So.2d 1035, 1038 (Fla.1997) (“Failure to meet the oath requirement warrants dismissal of the motion without prejudice.”); see also Desouza v. State, 874 So.2d 729, 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (citing Groover and concluding that the trial court properly ruled that the defendant who had failed to sign and swear his post-conviction motion should be afforded an opportunity to refile).

2005See Lyell v. State, 872 So.2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

2005Indeed there is such importance and significance attached to the oath requirement that a complaint not so sworn to is subject to dismissal.") (citations omitted); United States v. Blierley, 331 F.Supp. 1182, 1183 (W.D.Pa.1971) ("The complaint is insufficient to issue warrants of arrest.

2004See Groover v. State, 703 So.2d 1035, 1038 (Fla.1997)(finding that the "[f]ailure to meet the oath requirement [under rule 3.850(c)] warrants dismissal of the motion without prejudice"); Weisman v. State, 651 So.2d 148, 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)(where the trial court denied the defendant's belated appeal pursuant to rule 3.850 because it was not made under oath, finding that "the trial court should have afforded [the defendant] an opportunity to refile a properly sworn motion for belated appeal").

1970See Bryan v. State, 41 Fla. 643 , 26 So. 1022 (1899); Sutton v. State, 202 So.2d 589 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1967).