CHARLES EDWARD WALK, 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.
Charles Edward Walk appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion filed more than two years after his conviction became final. The court quashed the trial court's order because it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion while Walk's appeal of a related sexual predator designation order was pending.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the Rule 3.850 motion because Walk's appeal of the sexual predator designation order was pending when the motion was filed. Although the motion would normally be time-barred under Rule 3.850(b), which requires filing within two years of final judgment, the jurisdictional defect rendered the trial court's order denying the motion a nullity.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a post-conviction relief motion when an appeal concerning the same subject matter is pending.
[2] A post-conviction relief motion is untimely if filed more than two years after the conviction and sentence become final.
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 did not have jurisdiction to rule on the merits of Walk's motion, and the order denying the motion is a nullity”
Establishes the core holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because of the pending appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalk entered a plea of nolo contendere on December 5, 1994, to attempted sexual battery while armed, burglary of a dwelling while armed, burglary of a…
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 Nolo Contendere Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Charles Edward Walk appeals the summary denial of his 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief because it was filed more than two years after the judgment and sentence became final. The order of the trial court is quashed because it had no jurisdiction to entertain or rule upon the motion.
Walk entered a plea of nolo contendere on 5 December 1994 to attempted sexual battery while armed, burglary of a dwelling while armed, burglary of a dwelling with a battery, and petit theft. He was sentenced to three concurrent 17 year sentences and the trial court entered final judgment of conviction the same day as the plea. Walk never appealed his conviction and sentence.
Several years later, the state moved to have Walk declared a sexual predator pursuant to section 775.21(4), Florida Statutes. The trial court granted the motion and entered a written order on 6 February 1997, which was appealed to this court on 24 February 1997.1 While the appeal was pending, Walk also filed a 3.850 motion claiming that his pleas were involuntarily entered because he was not informed that he could be declared a sexual predator. The subject matter of the appeal and the motion were the same. Therefore, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the merits of Walk’s motion, and the order denying the motion is a nullity. Hall v. State, 697 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Any ruling on the merits from this court would likewise be a nullity. Id.
Under other circumstances, the trial court’s ruling would be correct. A motion filed pursuant to rule 3.850 is untimely if filed more than two years after the conviction and sentence become final. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). If the conviction and sentence are not appealed, they become final 30 days after they are entered. Ramos v. State, 658 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Walk’s conviction and sentence became final on 4 January 1995. Consequently, the motion was time-barred.
Because Walk’s appeal of the order declaring him a sexual predator was pending when he filed his rule 3.850 motion, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion. Accordingly, the order denying the motion is quashed.
ORDER QUASHED.
DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . Walk v. State, 700 So. 2d 147, 22 Fla. Law Weekly D2372 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct.10, 1997) (affirmed without opinion).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cabrera v. State, 884 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…licable to correct erroneous sexual predator designations. The remedy provided by rule 3.850 may not be available if the designation is made long after expiration of the time limits for filing a motion under the rule. For example, in Walk v. State, 707 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), the state filed a motion under section 775.21 to have the defendant declared a sexual predator in February 1997, which was several years after the defendant was convicted and sentenced. After the order was entered, the defendant…
-
Smith v. State, 861 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…iels, the supreme court held that a ruling on the merits of a rule 3.850 motion when a direct appeal is pending is a nullity and therefore the appellate court should dismiss an appeal of such an order, rather than affirming. See also, Walk v. State, 707 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). However, in this case the trial court did not rule on the merits, but dismissed without prejudice. Our affirmance of the trial court is without prejudice to the defendant filing a proper motion with a sufficient oath after the m…
-
Hatten v. State, 143 So. 3d 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…November 7, 2011, the defendant entered a no contest plea to sex charges in two circuit court cases. Since he did not file a direct appeal in either case, the defendant’s judgments became final 30 days later, on December 7, 2011. See Walk v. State, 707 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Pursuant to the mailbox rule, the defendant filed his second rule 3.850 motion on December 6, 2013, as evidenced by the certificate of service which indicates that it was placed in the hands of prison officials for mailing by th…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ramos v. State, 658 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Hall v. State, 697 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Jackson v. State, 700 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Walk v. State, 700 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)