THOMAS PERRY WELLS, JR., 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.
Trial court lacked jurisdiction to deny a motion to amend postconviction relief during pendency of direct appeal; such motion should be dismissed rather than denied, and case is remanded for consideration after direct appeal dismissal.
A motion to amend a postconviction relief motion that adds new grounds should be dismissed rather than denied when filed during a pending direct appeal, because denial constitutes a ruling on the merits.
[1] A motion to amend a postconviction relief motion that adds new grounds should be dismissed rather than denied when filed during pendency of a direct appeal, because denia…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas Wells filed a motion to amend his Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion to add new grounds while a direct appeal was pending in the appellate…
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 Motion To Amend cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Thomas Wells appeals the denial of his motion to amend his motion for postconviction relief. In the motion to amend, Wells seeks to add an additional ground not alleged in his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court entered an order denying Wells’ motion to amend on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion because Wells had a direct appeal pending in this court on the same case. It appears that the trial court addressed only Wells’ motion to amend, and that his original motion for postconviction relief is still pending in the trial court.
A motion to amend which adds new grounds should be handled in the same manner as a successive motion. See McConn v. State, 708 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The trial court is correct that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion during the pendency of Wells’ direct appeal. See, e.g., Daniels v. State, 712 So. 2d 765 (Fla.1998) (holding that the trial court is without jurisdiction to rule on a motion for postconviction relief during the pendency of a direct appeal). However, such a prematurely filed motion should be dismissed rather than denied because a denial generally serves as a ruling on the merits. See, e.g., Burch v. State, 721 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). We, therefore, reverse the order of denial and remand to the trial court. Because Wells has since voluntarily dismissed his direct appeal, the trial court now has jurisdiction to entertain both Wells’ motion to amend and his original motion for postconviction relief.
Reversed and remanded.
PATTERSON, A.C.J., and FULMER and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Naples v. Naples, 967 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…21, 1227 (1991). . In addition to dismissing the Wife's "cause,” the order also stated that the Wife's motion was denied. We see nothing in the record indicating that the trial court actually considered the merits of the motion. Cf. Wells v. State, 736 So. 2d 24, 25 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (stating that denial usually serves as ruling on merits); Union Oil of Cal. Amsco Div. v. Watson, 468 So. 2d 349, 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (stating dismissal for lack of jurisdiction not considered adjudication on the merits). O…
-
Robertson v. State, 862 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…nding. Mr. Robertson appealed that ruling in case number 2D02-3043. See Robertson v. State, 827 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (table decision). We affirmed the trial court in August 2002 with a per curiam opinion that merely cited to Wells v. State, 736 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), and Daniels v. State, 712 So. 2d 765 (Fla.1998). Both Wells and Daniels hold that a trial court is without jurisdiction to rule on a motion filed pursuant to rule 3.850 during the pendency of a direct appeal. See Wells, 736 So. 2…
-
Onel Munoz v. State, 811 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…onviction relief. Munoz has not provided any extraordinary reasons or circumstances to justify the relief sought. His motion to amend, properly considered a second post-conviction motion, was correctly denied as successive. See e.g., Wells v. State, 736 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)(motion to amend petition for post-conviction relief should be handled in the same manner that the court would consider a successive motion under Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Daniels v. State, 712 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1998)
- McCONN v. State, 708 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Burch v. State, 721 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)