ANTHONY JONES, 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 pending appeal from a postconviction relief matter does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to consider a separate postconviction attack on the conviction.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider a defendant's postconviction motion attacking a conviction while a direct appeal of that conviction is pending.
[2] The pendency of an appeal from a postconviction relief matter does not deprive trial courts of jurisdiction to consider a separate postconviction motion attacking the con…
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 intelligenceAnthony Jones challenged his homicide conviction via a postconviction motion. The trial court dismissed the motion, believing it lacked jurisdiction d…
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 Pending Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Jones challenges the dismissal of his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850 attacking his homicide conviction. The trial court’s order of dismissal recites the pendency of Jones’s appeal in this court, and it references cases holding that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider a defendant’s postconviction attack on his conviction while his direct appeal proceeds in the district court. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 657 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). However, when Jones filed the motion at issue here the direct appeal of his conviction and sentence had in fact been completed and the mandate had issued. See Jones v. State, 743 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (per curiam affirmed) (table citation).
Accordingly, we reverse.
It is true that when the trial court took up consideration of Jones’s motion, Jones did have an appeal pending in this court stemming from the same trial court case file. But that appeal was not from the judgment and sentence. Rather, it arose from the denial of a postconviction motion seeking to compel the production of transcripts. An appeal of a postconviction relief matter will not deprive trial courts of jurisdiction so long as the issues raised in the two cases are unrelated. See Ali v. State, 732 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Montague v. State, 710 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); see also Keel v. State, 740 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
Jones’s attempts to secure transcripts were sufficiently unrelated to the multi-pronged postconviction attack on his judgment and sentence that the trial court should have entertained his motion on its merits. To hold otherwise could deprive a litigant of his right to attack his conviction, because the pendency of an appeal' — other than one directly from the judgment and sentence — does not toll the time limitations of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b).
Reversed for consideration of Jones’s motion on its merits.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and GREEN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lindsay v. State, 842 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…ee generally Francois v. Klein, 431 So. 2d 165 (Fla.1983) (explaining that a rule 3.850 motion could be considered by the trial court while a petition for writ of habeas corpus as to the same case was pending in the appellate court); Jones v. State, 787 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (ruling that the trial court should not have dismissed a rule 3.850 motion while a prior unrelated postconviction motion was on appeal); Norman v. State, 739 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding that a court can rule on a 3.85…
-
Cross v. State, 930 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…mphasis added). In accordance with this general rule, this court has held that “[a]n appeal of a postconviction relief matter will not deprive trial courts of jurisdiction so long as the issues raised in the two cases are unrelated.” Jones v. State, 787 So. 2d 35, 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); see also Hartley v. State, 927 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Ottesen v. State, 844 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Ali v. State, 732 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). On the other hand, we have recognized that trial courts lack…
-
Ottesen v. State, 844 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…rule 3.800(a) was pending in this court. However, the pending rule 3.800(a) appeal did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to consider the current rule 3.850 motion because the issues raised in the motions are unrelated. See Jones v. State, 787 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Ali v. State, 732 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Montague v. State, 710 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to consider the merits of Ottesen’s rule 3.850 motion. Reversed and r…
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
- Johnson v. State, 657 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Bennett v. State, 740 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Jernigan v. State, 710 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Bilal Siddiq ALI v. State, 732 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)