We reverse the order that dismissed with prejudice Appellant’s December 13, 2013 rule 3.850 motion. The court erred in finding the motion successive to a motion that Appellant filed under rule 3.800(a). The rule 3.800(a) motion did not seek relief under rule 3.850 and nothing in that motion indicates Appellant was attempting to amend the original rule 3.850 motion. See Oquendo v. State, 2 So.3d 1001, 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“As long as a postconviction movant has been afforded at least one opportunity to amend an insufficient claim, the trial court has discretion as to whether to permit any further amendment.”).

The trial court shall address the claims raised in this motion and, if appropriate, should consider appointing counsel to represent appellant in the postconviction proceedings. See Russo v. Akers, 724 So.2d 1151,1152-53 (Fla. 1998); Graham v. State, 372 So.2d 1363,1365-66 (Fla. 1979).

Reversed and Remanded.