SCOTT FIRST, SR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Plenary Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
[*395] PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Scott First, Sr., challenges the denial of the motion he filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Since the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appellant’s motion, we reverse.
Although a trial court has jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence at any time, during the pendency of a plenary appeal of a judgment and sentence, this jurisdiction is limited to the correction of clerical errors. Easterling v. State, 596 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The appellant filed his motion challenging the illegality of his sentence while he had an appeal pending in this court. The trial court was, accordingly, without jurisdiction to determine the appellant’s motion on the merits and should have dismissed it. See Hulick v. State, 644 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
We, accordingly, reverse and remand with instructions to enter an order dismissing the appellant’s motion without prejudice to his renewing his claim, if necessary, after the conclusion of his appeal.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clark v. State, 720 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…ed Clark’s rule 3.850 motion while Clark’s appeal from the sexual predator designation was pending before this court. The trial court concluded that Clark’s appeal divested it of jurisdiction to consider his rule 3.850 motion, citing First v. State, 677 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (holding that trial court had no jurisdiction over a rule 3.800(a) motion challenging the illegality of a sentence when a plenary appeal of that sentence and the underlying judgment was pending). We disagree with the trial court…
-
Sauve v. State, 693 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…Sauve’s motion was filed while his appeal was pending in this court and did not seek correction of a clerical error, the trial court was without jurisdiction to determine Sauve’s motion on the merits and should have dismissed it. See First v. State, 677 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to enter an order dismissing Sauve’s motion without prejudice to him renewing his claim, if necessary, after the conclusion of his pending direct appeal. BLUE, A.C.J., and…
-
Humphrey v. State, 679 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…ey’s motion was filed while his appeal was pending in this court and did not seek correction of a clerical error, the trial court was without jurisdiction to determine Humphrey’s motion on the merits and should have dismissed it. See First v. State, 677 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to enter an order dismissing Humphrey’s motion without prejudice to his renewing his claim, if necessary, after the conclusion of his appeal. Reversed and remanded with ins…
Authorities Cited
- Easterling v. State, 596 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Hulick v. State, 644 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)