DANIEL PIERRE CARTER, 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 affirmed Carter's convictions for grand theft and racketeering but reversed the trial court's dismissal of his postconviction motion for sentencing errors and remanded for reconsideration.
A trial court retains jurisdiction to consider postconviction motions under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) even while a direct appeal is pending.
[1] A trial court retains jurisdiction to consider motions for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) while a direct appeal is pending.
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 intelligenceDaniel Carter was convicted of twenty counts of grand theft and one count of racketeering. He filed a direct appeal and a postconviction motion allegi…
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 Jurisdiction Of Trial Court cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Chief Judge.
In these consolidated appeals, Daniel Carter challenges his judgment and sentences for twenty counts of grand theft and one count of racketeering and the order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In the direct appeal, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and In re Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla.1991), alleging that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. In response, Carter has filed a pro se brief raising various allegations of error. Upon an independent review of the record, we agree with appellate counsel that the trial was free of reversible error and, therefore, affirm Carter’s judgment and sentence.
In his motion for postconviction relief, Carter alleges certain sentencing errors which the trial court did not address. The trial court erred in denying Carter’s motion on the basis that Carter had filed a direct appeal of his case. A trial court retains jurisdiction to consider motions filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a) while an appeal is pending. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.600(d); Johnson v. State, 697 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Accordingly, we remand Carter’s postconviction motion to the trial court for reconsideration.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
PARKER and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- In re App. Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1991)
- Johnson v. State, 697 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)