ALLEN KING, 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.
Allen King appealed an order summarily denying most of his Rule 3.850 postconviction relief claims while granting relief on one sentencing claim, resulting in resentencing. The appellate court redesignated the appeal as a direct appeal from the amended sentence to allow all challenges to proceed together.
The appellate court redesignated the appeal as a direct appeal from the amended sentence filed July 11, 2000, allowing all of the appellant's challenges to remain in one case rather than separating the resentencing issue from the summary denial issues.
[1] An appeal from an order granting postconviction relief and imposing a new sentence should be redesignated as a direct appeal from the new sentence.
[2] Challenges to a trial court's ruling on a motion for postconviction relief may be presented in a direct appeal from a resentencing order.
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 intelligence“the trial court summarily denied all but one of the claims presented in the appellant's Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief”
Establishes the nature of the trial court's order being appealed—denial of most postconviction claims with limited relief granted
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court issued an order addressing King's Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion, summarily denying all but one claim. The remaining claim re…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.141(B)(2) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges an order by which the trial court summarily denied all but one of the claims presented in the appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. As to the remaining claim, which related to the appellant’s sentence, the trial court granted relief and, in conjunction therewith, imposed a new sentence. This case was initially set up in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2), which provides a streamlined procedure for appeals of orders that grant or deny postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, but we ordered the parties to show cause why the appeal should not be redesignated as a direct appeal following a resentencing and why jurisdiction should not be relinquished to the trial court for appointment of counsel. Although both parties suggested that the-appellant’s challenge to the resentencing could be redesignated and assigned a new case number, with the summary denial issues proceeding separately under the rule 9.140(b)(2) procedure, we have determined that the better course in these circumstances is to allow all of the appellant’s challenges to remain in one case and to redesignate the appeal as a direct appeal from the new sentence.
We accordingly discharge the show cause order and redesignate this appeal as a direct appeal from the amended sentence filed July 11, 2000. Any challenges relating to the trial court’s ruling on the rule 3.850 motion may be presented in this appeal. Jurisdiction is relinquished to the trial court for 30 days for appointment of counsel to represent the appellant in this appeal.
ALLEN, C.J., BROWNING and POLSTON, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Slocum v. State, 95 So. 3d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…ce of appeal created jurisdiction to review not only the resentencing necessitated by the partial grant of relief on Slocum’s motion for postconviction relief, but also the July 27, 2011, partial denial of post-conviction relief. See King v. State, 795 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (concluding that “the better course” in appeals in this posture is to allow all of the appellant’s challenges to remain in one case and to redesignate the appeal as a direct appeal from the new sentence”). But King v. State, 795…1 / 3
-
Bines v. State, 837 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…*1147] 3.800(a). The third was directed toward the resentencing that stemmed from the granting of that rule 3.800(a) motion. These latter notices of appeal were redes-ignated by this Court as a direct appeal from the resentencing. See King v. State, 795 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). On this direct appeal, Appellant is entitled to relief. Appellant was resentenced because he correctly alleged in his rule 3.800(a) motion that he should not have been habit-ualized on his conviction, which was for a life felo…
-
Fleming v. State, 895 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…will be provided to the clerk of the trial court to be treated as a notice of appeal. Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(c)(5)(D). The trial court is directed to consider whether Mr. Fleming may be entitled to appointment of counsel for the appeal. King v. State, 795 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). PETITION GRANTED. WEBSTER, PADOVANO and HAWKES, 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 intelligence