NOAH BOLDON, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
NOAH BOLDON, PETITIONER,
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
740 So. 2d 15
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1999)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Noah Boldon petitions this court for a writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his motion to withdraw his plea. However, it appears that the motion was made at a time when petitioner was represented by counsel in the trial court and therefore the trial judge was within his discretion to treat the motion as a nullity and disregard it. Smith v. State, 444 So. 2d 542, 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
The petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.
ALLEN, WEBSTER and VAN NORTWICK, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harris v. State, 818 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…sidered this pro se motion, and it is unlikely that the trial court was aware of its existence. Because Harris was represented by counsel when he filed the pro se motion, the motion could properly be treated as a [*569] nullity. See Boldon v. State, 740 So. 2d 15, 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Salser v. State, 582 So. 2d 12, 14-15 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Moreover, the pro se motion does not specify the rule under which it is filed. It is facially insufficient under both rule 3.170(1) and rule 3.850, Florida Rules of…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Thompson, 444 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)