PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of the trial court's order which summarily denied his rule 3.850 motion as successive. We conclude that the court erred in this ruling because Appellant's prior postconviction motion was properly filed as a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Ingledue v. State,
Moreover, we conclude that Appellant's claims regarding trial counsel's failure to
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.