WILLIAM G. GAWRONSKI, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ineffective Assistance Of Trial Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
William G. Gawronski appeals the summary dismissal of his motion for postcon-viction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court dismissed Gawroriski’s motion finding that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain it because Gawronski had simultaneously filed a petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in this court pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c). Gawronski correctly argued to the trial court that the pendency of the rule 9.141(c) petition did not deprive it of jurisdiction to entertain the rule-3.850 motion. See Francois v. Klein, 431 So. 2d 165 (Fla.1983) (holding that because a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is necessarily separate and distinct from a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, the two claims may proceed simultaneously without danger of conflicting and confusing rulings by different courts); Baber v. State, 696 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to consider the merits of Gaw-ronski’s motion.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marrero v. State, 967 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…s direct appeal was concluded. His filing of a petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel did not deprive the postconviction court of jurisdiction to consider any rule 3.850 motion that he might have filed. See Gawronski v. State, 801 So. 2d 211, 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (stating “that the pendency of the rule 9.141(c) petition did not deprive [the postconviction court] of jurisdiction to entertain the rule 3.850 motion”). Similarly, had Marrero timely filed a rule 3.850 motion, he would not…
-
Fitzgerald Livingston White v. State, 855 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…ot perceive so substantial a problem of confusion as to require us to hold that the pendency of one kind of proceeding deprives the other court of jurisdiction to proceed. Francois v. Klein, 431 So. 2d 165, 166 (Fla.1983); See Gawronski v. State, 801 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Moreover, the habeas corpus petition has now been denied. We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to consider the merits of the Defendant’s 3.850 motion.…
-
Beam v. State, 60 So. 3d 1096 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…PER CURIAM. Daniel Beam appeals the dismissal of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. While the trial court erroneously believed it did not have jurisdiction to consider Beam’s motion, see Gawronski v. State, 801 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2001), we nonetheless affirm, concluding Beam’s second rule 3.850 motion to be procedurally barred as an abusive, successive motion. See Owen v. Crosby, 854 So. 2d 182 (Fla.2003); Christopher v. State, 489 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1986). AFFIR…
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
- Francois v. Klein, 431 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1983)
- Curt Baber v. State, 696 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)