THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
THE HONORABLE ARTHUR I. SNYDER, JUDGE OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The State sought a writ of prohibition to prevent a trial court from holding a hearing on a defendant's second motion for new trial. The Florida District Court of Appeal granted the petition, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the untimely motion, particularly because a belated appeal was pending before the appellate court.
The trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the second motion for new trial because it is untimely under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.590(a) and cannot be treated as an amendment to the first motion. Additionally, even if the motion could be considered as a motion to vacate judgment or petition for a writ of error coram nobis, the pending belated appeal deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to entertain it at that time.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a second motion for new trial filed long after the ten-day period prescribed by Fla.R.Crim.P. …
[2] A motion for new trial cannot be treated as a belated amendment to a prior motion for new trial if it is filed after the trial court has already ruled on the prior motion…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain it”
Establishes the core holding that an untimely motion for new trial deprives the trial court of jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant filed a second motion for new trial in the trial court, which was filed long after the ten-day deadline required by Florida Criminal Pro…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judgment And Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition for a writ of prohibition filed by the state to prohibit the trial court from holding an evidentiary hearing on the “[defendant's [sjecond [mjotion for [njew [tjrial” filed below. This motion was filed in the trial court following our reversal of a previous trial court order granting the defendant’s first motion for new trial. See State v. Prieto, 439 So. 2d 288 (Fla.3d DCA 1983). We conclude that the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain the defendant’s second motion for new trial and, accordingly, grant the petition for a writ of prohibition.
First, the second motion for new trial was plainly untimely under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.590(a) because it was, without dispute, filed long after ten days had expired from the filing of the jury verdict in this cause, as required by said rule. Nor can the motion be treated as a belated amendment to the defendant’s first motion for new trial under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.590(a) because the motion was filed long after the trial court had determined the first motion for new trial by granting it, thereby rendering the motion untimely as an amendment under the said rule. Inasmuch as the subject motion is untimely under Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.590(a), the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain it. See Long v. State, 96 So. 2d 897, 898 (Fla.1957); Farrior v. State, 76 So. 2d 148, 150 (Fla.1954); State v. Robinson, 417 So. 2d 760, 762 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Tafero v. State, 406 So. 2d 89, 91 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); State v. Farmer, 384 So. 2d 311, 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); State v. Pinto, 273 So. 2d 408, 411 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. dismissed, 283 So. 2d 367 (Fla.1973).
Second, we would ordinarily hold that the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the subject motion as a motion to vacate judgment and sentence under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850, see Smith v. State, 400 So. 2d 956 (Fla.1981), or as a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, see Hallman v. State, 371 So. 2d 482 (Fla.1979); Tafero v. State, supra, inasmuch as the defendant has been adjudicated guilty and sentenced in this case. We cannot do so, however, because a belated appeal from the final judgment and sentence under Baggett v. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 239 (Fla.1969) has been taken by the defendant to this court, and we have granted the defendant permission to prosecute this belated appeal. Prieto v. Wainwright, No. 84-1306 (Fla.3d DCA filed June 14, 1984). This pending appeal necessarily deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to entertain, at this time, the subject motion as a motion to vacate judgment and sentence under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 or as a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. State v. Meneses, 392 So. 2d 905 (Fla.1981).
Prohibition granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Bodden, 756 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…l court, therefore, was without jurisdiction to entertain the appellee’s untimely motion for a new trial in this case. See State v. Anton, 700 So. 2d 743, 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Clifton v. State, 697 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); State v. Snyder, 453 So. 2d 546, 546-47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); State v. Robinson, 417 So. 2d 760, 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The state, however, recognizes that defense counsel’s failure to timely file the motion for new trial does give rise to a claim of ineffective assistance of cou…
-
Clifton v. State, 697 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…e than ten days later. The case law is clear that a motion for new trial under Rule 3.590(a) must be filed within ten days after rendition of the verdict and that the trial court loses jurisdiction of the matter after that time. See State v. Snyder, 453 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); State v. Robinson, 417 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); see also State v. Johnson, 651 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)(be-cause ten-day time limit in Rule 3.590(a) is jurisdictional, court could not entertain motion for arrest of ju…
-
State v. Glover, 564 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…or rehearing after entry of an order denying a timely motion for new trial, citing State v. Morris, 359 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 365 So. 2d 713 (Fla.1978). See also Booker v. State, 503 So. 2d 888 (Fla.1987) and State v. Snyder, 453 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). In addition to considering their affidavits, the trial court in this case heard the proffered testimony of both of the found witnesses, who corroborated the defendant’s testimony that he was not the aggressor and that the victim…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Baggett v. Louie L. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1969)
- Hallman v. State, 371 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1979)
- Smith v. State, 400 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1981)
- State v. Meneses, 392 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1981)
- Tafero v. State, 406 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- State v. Robinson, 417 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- State v. Prieto, 439 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Farrior v. State, 76 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1954)
- State v. Pinto, 273 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- State v. Farmer, 384 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)