DAVID M. HARPHAM, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
ORFINGER, Judge.
The trial court was correct in holding that it has no jurisdiction to consider a motion for collateral relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 while an appeal from appellant’s conviction is pending in this court. Fick v. State, 388 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Procedurally, a request for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence is not properly brought under Rule 3.850. The correct way to seek relief on this ground is by a petition for writ of error coram nobis containing the necessary allegations. See Smith v. State, 400 So. 2d 956 (Fla.1981); Hallman v. State, 371 So. 2d 482 (Fla.1979).
The order of the trial court denying petitioner’s Rule 3.850 motion is AFFIRMED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr. and CO-WART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marshall v. State, 481 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…re 3.850. At the time Marshall submitted his petition, a direct appeal from the same judgment and sentence was pending in this court. Therefore, the trial court correctly ruled that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Harpham v. State, 415 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). We affirm the dismissal of Marshall’s petition without prejudice to Marshall’s right to seek post-conviction relief once this court has disposed of his direct appeal. LEHAN, A.C.J., and FRANK and SAND-ERLIN, JJ., concur.…
-
Bryant v. State, 442 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…is not based upon a consideration of the merits of Bryant’s motion, but solely upon the lower court’s lack of jurisdiction to consider the collateral relief motion while an appeal from Bryant’s conviction is pending in this court. Harpham v. State, 415 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Fick v. State, 388 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). ORFINGER, C.J., and SHARP, J., concur.…
-
Cleveland Darden v. State, 604 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…of his 3.850 motion. Because Darden took his plenary appeal before the trial judge denied his 3.850 motion, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to act on the 3.850 motion. See Alexander v. State, 600 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Harpham v. State, 415 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Fick v. State, 388 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Accordingly, the ruling sought to be appealed in this case is a nullity. We quash the trial court’s order on Darden’s 3.850 motion, but note that Darden may appeal a later ruli…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hallman v. State, 371 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1979)
- Smith v. State, 400 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1981)
- Fick v. State, 388 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)