Newman v. State (981 So. 2d 1277, 2008)

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Robert Newman appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for post conviction relief on five grounds. We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of ground three of the motion on its merit as appellant’s allegations were adequately refuted by the transcript attached to his motion showing the warning given pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). However, we reverse the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s other claims, 1, 2, 4 and 5, and remand to the trial court to permit appellant to file a facially sufficient motion within the time parameters of rule 3.850, pursuant to Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007).

Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded.

STEVENSON, GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.