CHRISTINE L. CAMPBELL-ELEY, 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.
A trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider a motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) while an appeal is pending.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider a motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) while an appeal is pend…
[2] Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600(d) limits a trial court's authority to hear post-trial motions during the pendency of an appeal to specific categories, excludin…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence while her appeal was pending. The trial court denied the motion, finding it legally insufficie…
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 Pending Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Christine L. Campbell-Eley (appellant) appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand with directions to dismiss her motion because the court lacked jurisdiction to rule on it.
On April 21 1997, a jury found appellant guilty of second degree murder and aggravated battery in connection with her fatal stabbing of a pregnant woman. On direct appeal to this court, her sentence and eon- victions were reversed, Campbell-Eley v. State, 718 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Upon remand, appellant was retried and convicted of third degree murder with a weapon and received an enhanced sentence of thirty years. Again, she appealed her conviction and sentence and this court again reversed and remanded for a new trial. Campbell-Eley v. State, 756 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). The State moved for rehearing and rehearing en banc, which we denied. In response, the State sought discretionary review of our decision from the Supreme Court of Florida and subsequently filed a Motion to Stay Mandate Pending Review. We granted that motion.
Prior to the State’s motion to stay our mandate, appellant filed a rule 3.800(a) Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence. The trial court denied that motion finding appellant’s motion to be legally insufficient.
Although rule 3.800(a) permits a trial court to correct an illegal sentence at any time, a party may not file a motion to correct an illegal sentence under this rule while an appeal is pending. See Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.800(a). Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600(d) empowers the trial court to hear only rule 3.800(b)(2) or post trial release motions, not motions pursuant to rule 3.800(a) while an appeal is pending.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider appellant’s motion. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to enter an order dismissing appellant’s motion without prejudice to her renewing her claim, if necessary, after the conclusion of her pending appeal.
KLEIN, STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DAY v. State, 770 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…to Fla. R. of Crim. P. 3.111(e) and 3.800 and Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(h), 9.HO, and 9.600, 761 So. 2d 1015 (Fla.1999). Effective January 13, 2000, a party may not file a rule 3.800(a) during the pendency of a direct appeal. See Campbell-Eley v. State, 763 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal without prejudice to the appellant’s right to file a new rule 3.800(a) mo [*1263] tion once the direct appeal has been resolved. JOANOS, KAHN and BROWNING, JJ. CONCUR.…
-
Martin v. State, 800 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…. 4th DCA 2001). The trial court is directed to dismiss the motion, without prejudice to Martin to re [*364] file now that the mandate has issued in the direct appeal and jurisdiction has been returned to the circuit court. Campbell-Eley v. State, 763 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). STONE, FARMER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
-
Rayfield Major v. State, 882 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…in this court. Martin v. State, 800 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Accordingly, the trial court shall dismiss the motion. This dismissal is without prejudice to Major refiling following the disposition of his direct appeal. Campbell-Eley v. State, 763 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 789 So. 2d 348 (Fla.2000). POLEN, SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Campbell-Eley v. State, 718 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Harvard v. State, 756 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)