JERRY L. HURST, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

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…

Authorities Cited

• Brewer v. State, 413 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)