FRANK DURDEN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the trial court has not entered a new order that serves as a basis for a new appeal.
The appellant filed a motion which was denied, and the subsequent appeal was dismissed. No new motion was filed, but the trial court attached record 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 Law Of The Case Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
We strike this cause because we do not have jurisdiction to hear it, since the trial court has not entered a new order below to serve as the basis for a new appeal. We write by way of explanation to the pro se appellant in this case, and others who may be similarly situated.
Durden previously filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which the trial court denied without attaching any portion of the record. Durden appealed. We dismissed that appeal without prejudice to Durden to refile his motion, with properly sworn-to motions and affidavits attached. We also noted that the trial court failed to address Durden’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel by not attaching portions of the record sufficient to show Durden had no basis for the relief sought.1
After that appeal was dismissed, Durden filed no new motion. However, the trial court apparently attached portions of the record below to its previously entered order. Although Durden filed no new notice of appeal, the clerk of the lower court has attempted to send the case back to this court for review.
Since no party has appealed, there is no cognizable case before us. Durden’s legal situation continues unchanged from our prior dismissal, and its current status is controlled by the law of the case. Cf. Williams v. City of Minneola, 619 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Fischbaeh & Moore, Inc. v. McBro, Div. of McCarthy Bros., 619 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
We herewith strike the “notice” sent to us by the lower court.
STRICKEN.
COBB and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . Order issued in Durden v. State, No. 94-2498 (Fla. 5th DCA Nov. 28, 1994).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Durden v. State, 657 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…smissal, the trial court attempted to provide this court with a copy of the trial record to refute the claims asserted in Durden’s first motion. We returned the record to the trial clerk because no appeal remained pending before us. Durden v. State, 652 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Durden now appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his second motion. Although he raises several claims for relief, we conclude that all but two are defective on their face. We treat in detail these two claims to help the t…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. City OF Minneola, 619 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Fischbach & Moore, Inc. v. McBRO, 619 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)