final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for
the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Charles E.
Burton, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2010CF013598A.
Antonio Wrencher, Bristol, pro se.
appearance required for appellee.
Wrencher appeals the trial court's order summarily
denying his rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. We
affirm and write to explain why certain issues argued by
Wrencher on appeal were not properly presented below and are
not before this Court.
November 2010, Wrencher killed his girlfriend outside of a
bar by stabbing and slashing her numerous times with a
kitchen knife. At trial, the State presented copious evidence
that Wrencher premeditated the murder, which was committed in
front of at least one witness and to which Wrencher
confessed. The jury convicted him of first degree murder, and
he was sentenced to life in prison. This Court affirmed on
direct appeal without a published opinion. Wrencher v.
State, 181 So.3d 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (table).
filed a timely rule 3.850 motion raising seven claims. The
trial court ordered the State to respond to the motion.
Thereafter, and without seeking leave to amend, Wrencher
filed an amended motion purporting to add two more claims.
The State responded to the initial motion attaching records
to refute the seven claims but did not address the eighth and
ninth claims asserted in the amended motion. The trial court
denied Wrencher's initial motion, incorporating the
State's response. Wrencher moved for rehearing, but did
not take issue with the court's failure to address the
eighth and ninth claims raised in the amended motion.
then filed another amended motion, which he titled
"Third Amended Rule 3.850 motion, " purporting to
add a tenth claim. He then appealed the order denying
rehearing as to his initial motion. At no time did Wrencher
seek or obtain leave of court to amend his motion.
this appeal was pending, the court entered an order
dismissing without prejudice Wrencher's last amended
motion, which asserted the tenth claim for relief, because of
a deficient oath. Wrencher filed an amendment including an
unnotarized oath. He also moved for rehearing from the
nonfinal order dismissing the amended motion without
prejudice. The court denied rehearing. Wrencher did not file
a notice of appeal from this order.
Initial Brief, Wrencher argues that the court erred in
denying all ten of his claims. We affirm without further
discussion the court's summary denial of claims one
through seven - which are the only matters properly before
amended motion purporting to add claims eight and nine was
not properly presented to the trial court, and the court did
not address these claims. Pursuant to Florida Rule of
Criminal Procedure 3.850(e), a movant must obtain leave of
court to amend a postconviction motion after the court has
ordered the State to respond. See also Saltzman v.
State, 154 So.3d 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
neither requested nor obtained leave of court to amend his
motion. The eighth and ninth claims were not addressed by the
State in its response nor by the trial court in its order.
Any error in the denial of these claims is not preserved for
appeal. Regardless, we have reviewed the claims, which are
wholly without merit.
Finally, the nonfinal order dismissing the last amended
motion without prejudice was not appealable, and Wrencher did
not file a notice of appeal. Again, Wrencher did not obtain
leave to amend as required by rule 3.850(e). The trial court
did not address the ...