We reverse and remand the trial court’s order that dismissed with prejudice appellant’s rule 3.850 motion. The trial court previously dismissed appellant’s motions and supplements without prejudice, and offered him at least two opportunities to fíle a sufficient and comprehensive motion within the fifty-page limitation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d). See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 761 (Fla. 2007). In response to the second dismissal, appellant filed a motion that exceeded fifty pages. It included forty-seven typewritten pages with the requisite oath which was followed by six additional handwritten pages. The trial court dismissed the motion with prejudice reasoning that appellant was either “unwilling or incapable of complying with this court’s orders.” Notably, the trial court did not reject the claims as legally insufficient.

While we understand the court’s frustration, we conclude that it should have reviewed the pages within the fifty-page limit as a motion that was “comprehensive, single, and sworn,” and stricken the pages that followed. See, e.g., Mancino v. State, 10 So.3d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (noting that rejection of motion based on form is not the same as a Spera rejection). The court’s failure to review the sufficiency of the motion amounted to an abuse of discretion. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2) (providing a court with discretion to deny with prejudice where an amended motion is still insufficient).

We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings. Reversed and Remanded.