JAY WILSON, 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.
Jay Wilson appealed his sexual battery sentence via an Anders brief, challenging his conviction on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntary plea. The court affirmed the sentence but declined to address Wilson's substantive claims due to procedural defects in how he filed his appeal and subsequent motions.
The court affirmed Wilson's sentence without addressing the substantive challenges because: (1) filing a notice of appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction to rule on the subsequently filed motion to withdraw the plea, and absent such a ruling, the appellate court cannot take jurisdiction over the voluntariness challenge; and (2) ineffective assistance claims cannot be considered on direct appeal unless the ineffectiveness is clear on the face of the record, which these claims are not.
[1] Filing a notice of appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction to enter further rulings, absent specific exceptions.
[2] A reviewing court cannot consider a challenge to the voluntariness of a plea on direct appeal unless the defendant first moved to withdraw the plea in the trial court and…
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 intelligence“By filing his notice of appeal, Wilson divested the trial court of jurisdiction to enter any further rulings in the case, including a ruling on Wilson's subsequently filed motion to withdraw his plea.”
Establishes the core jurisdictional problem preventing appellate review of the motion to withdraw the plea
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilson pleaded guilty to sexual battery on October 12, 2000, and judgment and sentence were entered on October 17, 2000. Wilson filed a pro se notice …
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 Anders Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
In this Anders1 appeal, Jay Wilson challenges his sentence for sexual battery. In his pro se notice of appeal, he alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective and that his plea was entered involuntarily. We affirm the sentence. However, due to the procedural posture of this case, we do not address the issues of the ineffectiveness of counsel or the voluntariness of Wilson’s plea.
The procedural posture of the case developed as follows: The trial court accepted Wilson’s guilty plea to sexual battery on October 12, 2000, and entered written judgment and sentence on October 17, 2000. Wilson filed his pro se notice of appeal on October 24, 2000, and seven days later, Wilson filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea. By this motion, he again alleged that his plea had not been voluntarily entered.
The jurisdictional problem arises because, by filing his notice of appeal, Wilson divested the trial court of jurisdiction to enter any further rulings in the case, including a ruling on Wilson’s subsequently filed motion to "withdraw his plea. While there are exceptions to the general rule that filing a notice of appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction, those exceptions do not apply here. See Kit v. State, 705 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Clark v. State, 720 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
This court on direct appeal cannot take jurisdiction over a challenge to the voluntariness of a plea unless the defendant has first filed in the trial court a motion to withdraw that plea and the trial .court has denied the motion. Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)(c). Because Wilson’s motion was never ruled on, this court cannot take jurisdiction over Wilson’s challenge to the involuntariness of his plea.
Furthermore, this court may not consider a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal unless the ineffectiveness is clear on the face of the record. Wuornos v. State, 676 So. 2d 972, 974 (Fla.1996). Wilson’s claims of ineffectiveness involve allegations that trial counsel misinformed him regarding gaintime and parole possibilities and that trial counsel pressured him into accepting the State’s offer. Since the allegations of ineffectiveness are not demonstrated on the face of the record, we do not address these issues.
Because this appeal was filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we are required to review the record for errors not cited by counsel. Having reviewed the record in its entirety, we affirm Wilson’s judgment and sentence. However, we affirm without prejudice to any right Wilson might have to raise the issues of the involuntariness of his plea and the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel in a subsequent motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Affirmed.
GREEN and COVINGTON, JJ„ concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Sharp v. State, 884 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…differs from the first in that Sharp filed it after he filed a notice of appeal. As a result, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider or rule on the motion. See Cunningham v. State, 838 So. 2d 1209, 1210 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Wilson v. State, 814 So. 2d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). As we stated in Wilson, the filing of the notice of appeal “divested the trial court of jurisdiction to enter any further rulings in the case, including a ruling on Wilson’s subsequently filed motion to withdraw his plea.”…
-
Kearse v. State, 858 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…one that may only be asserted if it is preserved by a motion to withdraw the plea. Once Kearse filed his notice of appeal, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to decide Kearse’s subsequently filed motion to withdraw his plea. Wilson v. State, 814 So. 2d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“The jurisdictional problem arises because, by filing his notice of appeal, Wilson divested the trial court of jurisdiction to enter any further rulings in the case, including a ruling on Wilson’s subsequently filed motion…
-
Carroll v. State, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)…ll argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his Rule 3.170(l) motion to withdraw his plea because his pro se notice of appeal was a legal nullity, as he filed it while represented by counsel. The State argues that pursuant to Wilson v. State, 814 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), a notice of appeal divests a trial court of jurisdiction to rule on a subsequently filed motion to withdraw plea, even if the notice of appeal was filed pro se by a represented defendant. Id. However, while the court in Wilson he…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Wuornos v. State, 676 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 1996)
- Clark v. State, 720 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- KIT v. State, 705 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)