MICHAEL JOSEPH NILIO
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Nilio appealed the summary dismissal of his third postconviction motion challenging 2017 convictions. The trial court incorrectly found it lacked jurisdiction because other postconviction appeals were pending. The appellate court reversed, holding that trial courts retain jurisdiction to consider new postconviction motions when pending appeals present unrelated issues.
The trial court retains jurisdiction to consider a postconviction motion filed while other postconviction appeals are pending, so long as the issues raised in the different cases are unrelated.
[1] A trial court retains jurisdiction to consider a postconviction motion filed while another postconviction appeal is pending, provided the issues raised in the two cases a…
[2] A trial court's jurisdiction to consider a subsequent postconviction motion is not divested by a pending appeal of a prior postconviction motion if the issues presented a…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“where a defendant files a postconviction motion while another postconviction appeal is still pending, the trial court still has jurisdiction to consider the motion "so long as the issues raised in the two cases are unrelated."”
Establishes the governing legal principle that trial court jurisdiction depends on whether the issues are unrelated, not simply on the pendency of other appeals.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNilio was convicted in 2017 of aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He filed a third motion for p…
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 Possession Of A Firearm By A Convicted Felon cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Michael Joseph Nilio appeals an order summarily dismissing his third motion for postconviction relief challenging his 2017 convictions for aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The postconviction court found that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion because Nilio had two postconviction appeals pending in this Court. We reverse.
We have held that where a defendant files a postconviction motion while another postconviction appeal is still pending, the trial court still has jurisdiction to consider the motion “so long as the issues raised in the two cases are unrelated.” Cannie v. State, 277 So. 3d 754, 755 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (quoting Bates v. State,
704 So. 2d 562, 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)) (emphasis omitted); see Kimmel v. State, 629 So. 2d 1110, 1110–1111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (setting out and explaining this principle); accord Bryant v. State, 102 So. 3d 660, 663 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (en banc); Jackman v. State, 88 So. 3d 325, 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (en banc); Siskos v. State, 163 So. 3d 739, 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); but see Rua-Torbizco v. State, 237 So. 3d 1065, 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“[O]nce the notice of appeal of the order denying the first motion for postconviction relief has been filed, the trial court is without jurisdiction to consider the second motion for postconviction relief while that appeal remains pending.”). Nilio’s third postconviction motion did not present any issues related to his previous motions. Thus, the trial court did not lack jurisdiction to rule on Nilio’s motion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
RAY, C.J., and ROWE and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nilio v. State, 277 So. 3d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)…that where a defendant files a postconviction motion while another postconviction appeal is still pending, the trial court still has jurisdiction to consider the motion “so long as the issues raised in the two cases are unrelated.” Cannie v. State, 277 So. 3d 754, 755 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (quoting Bates v. State, 704 So. 2d 562, 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)) (emphasis omitted); see Kimmel v. State, 629 So. 2d 1110, 1110–1111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (setting out and explaining this principle); accord Bryant v. State…
Authorities Cited
- Bates v. State, 704 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Kimmel v. State, 629 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Jackman v. State, 88 So. 3d 325 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Bryant v. State, 102 So. 3d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Siskos v. State, 163 So. 3d 739 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)
- Rua-Torbizco v. State, 237 So. 3d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Nilio v. State, 277 So. 3d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)