STEVEN P. MCFARLAND, 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.
Trial court erred in denying a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion for lack of jurisdiction where the issues raised were unrelated to a pending appeal of a prior Rule 3.800(a) motion.
A trial court retains jurisdiction to rule on a later-filed postconviction motion when the issues in that motion are unrelated to issues in a previously-filed motion that is still on appeal.
[1] A trial court does not lose jurisdiction to rule on a later-filed postconviction motion merely because an appeal of a prior postconviction motion is pending, provided the…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcFarland filed a Rule 3.850 motion on January 4, 2000, raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and breach of plea agreement. A prior Rule…
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 Scoresheet Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant filed a motion under Rule 3.850 in the trial court on January 4, 2000.
On January 26, 2000, the appellant filed a notice of appeal of the denial of a previous Rule 3.800(a) motion in this Court.
On March 6, 2001, the trial court denied the 3.850 motion for lack of jurisdiction. The appeal in the present case is from the March 6, 2001, order. While an appeal of a prior postconviction motion is pending, the trial court has no jurisdiction to rule on a subsequent post-conviction motion when the issues in the two motions are related.
However, where the issues in each motion are not related to each other, the trial court does not lose jurisdiction over the later-filed motion. See Bates v. State, 704 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Kimmel v. State, 629 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). The appellant’s Rule 3.850 motion raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and the state’s breach of the plea agreement, while his Rule 3.800(a) motion raised claims of scrivener’s errors, scoresheet errors, and double jeopardy. Because the issues in the two motions are unrelated, the trial court had jurisdiction to address the merits of the instant Rule 3.850 motion. We accordingly reverse the order under review and remand this case to the trial court to consider the merits of the appellant’s Rule 3.850 motion.
ALLEN, C.J., MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Howard v. State, 969 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See McFarland v. State, 808 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). ORFINGER, MONACO and LAWSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Biggs v. State, 851 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…gh the appellant’s appeal of a previous denial was pending on appeal at the time he filed his second motion, the issues in the motions were unrelated, so the trial court did not lose jurisdiction to rule on the subsequent motion. McFarland v. State, 808 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). However, the appellant’s motion was properly dismissed as successive because he failed to show that the grounds asserted were not known and could not have been known to him at the time of his earlier motion. Zeigler v. State, 63…
-
Smith v. State, 858 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…des, the pen-dency of Smith’s appeal from denial of an earlier filed Rule 3.850 motion did not deprive the court below of jurisdiction to consider the instant 3.800 motion which raised unrelated grounds. See Fla.R.Crim. P. 3.800; McFarland v. State, 808 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Hines v. State, 714 So. 2d 605, 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Montague v. State, 710 So. 2d 228, 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Bates v. State, 704 So. 2d 562, 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Accordingly, the order striking Smith’s May 9, 2003 R…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bates v. State, 704 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Kimmel v. State, 629 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)