MATTHEW SYVERSON
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.
The appellate court affirmed a defendant's guilty plea and sentence but dismissed the appeal concerning the denial of his motion to withdraw the plea. The court found the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion after the defendant filed a notice of appeal.
No, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion to withdraw the plea because it was filed after the notice of appeal. Therefore, both the motion and the order denying it are nullities.
[1] A defendant who pleads guilty without an express reservation of the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue has no right to a direct appeal.
[2] A trial court is divested of jurisdiction to consider a motion to withdraw a guilty plea once a notice of appeal has been filed.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
This quote establishes the legal principle that the trial court loses jurisdiction to rule on a motion to withdraw a plea once a notice of appeal has been filed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMatthew Syverson pleaded guilty to several serious felonies and was sentenced to life in prison. He later filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty…
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 Reservation Of Right To Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
EDWARDS, C.J.
For crimes committed while he was already on probation, Matthew Syverson entered guilty pleas to second-degree murder with a weapon, armed robbery, armed burglary with assault or battery, first-degree arson, and tampering with evidence. On January 31, 2022, the trial court entered a judgment of guilty and sentenced him to life in prison on each count of murder, armed
robbery, and armed burglary, and five years in prison, concurrent, on each count of arson and tampering with evidence.1 Syverson was represented by counsel during the plea and sentencing.
One week later, on February 7, 2022, Syverson filed a pro se notice of appeal. Ten days after filing his notice of appeal, February 17, 2022, he filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. On March 15, 2022, the trial court entered an order summarily denying Syverson’s motion to withdraw his plea. On April 5, 2022, Syverson’s counsel filed an amended notice of appeal noting that it was an appeal of the January 31, 2022 judgment and sentence; no other order was mentioned in the notice of appeal.
Because Syverson pled guilty without an express reservation of the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue, he has no right to a direct appeal. See § 924.06(3), Fla. Stat. (2022). Accordingly, we affirm the underlying judgment and sentence. See Schaefer v. State, 343 So. 3d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (citing Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114, 119 (Fla. 2000)).
In his brief, filed by counsel, Syverson argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw plea without holding an evidentiary hearing. Indeed, the only arguments advanced on appeal by Syverson concern the order denying his motion to withdraw his plea. The State’s brief argues in support of the trial court’s order denying the motion to withdraw plea. However, both sides overlooked the fact that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion to withdraw plea which was filed after the notice of appeal had been filed.2 “When a defendant files a [pro se] notice of appeal following the entry of a final judgment
and sentence, whether ultimately determined to be effectual or not, the trial court is divested of jurisdiction [to consider the motion to withdraw plea].” Carroll v. State, 266 So. 3d 1270, 1272 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019). Both the motion to withdraw plea and the order denying the motion are nullities and should be stricken. See Payet v. State, 357 So. 3d 172, 173 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). We decline to consider Syverson’s arguments directed to the denial of his motion to withdraw plea.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and sentences, dismiss the appeal as to the order denying motion to withdraw plea, and remand for entry of an order striking the motion to withdraw plea and the order denying that motion. As this Court has previously advised other defendants in this situation, Syverson may still file a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, if he can do so in good faith.3
AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
JAY and MACIVER, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2000)
- Carroll v. State, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
- Payet v. State, 357 So. 3d 172 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)