MIGUEL PEREZ, 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.
The court reversed dismissal of a Rule 3.850 motion filed during a pending appeal, holding that stay rather than dismissal is the proper remedy when a trial court lacks jurisdiction due to a pending appeal.
When a trial court is precluded by a pending appeal from ruling on a post-conviction relief motion, the proper procedure is to stay the motion rather than dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction.
[1] When a trial court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a post-conviction relief motion due to a pending appeal, the proper remedy is to stay the motion rather than dismiss it.
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 intelligenceAppellant Perez filed a Rule 3.850 motion to vacate his plea while his direct appeal was pending. The motion itself acknowledged the trial court's lac…
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 Criminal Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this case, appellant moved in the circuit court to vacate his plea under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 while his direct appeal was pending. Paragraph thirteen of his motion recognized that the trial court was without jurisdiction to rule on the motion while the direct appeal was pending. The trial court dismissed the motion relying on Wilcher v. State, 805 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Wilcher indicates that dismissal is the appropriate remedy under these circumstances, concluding that the trial court could not rule on a 3.850 motion filed while an appeal is pending, even after the appeal is concluded and a mandate is issued returning jurisdiction to the trial court.
We ñnd nothing in the criminal rules which requires dismissal under these circumstances. We believe that when the trial court is precluded by a pending appeal from ruling on a motion for post-conviction relief, the better procedure is to stay the post-conviction relief motion rather than dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction. See Washington v. State, 823 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). We recede from our prior opinion in Wilcher to the extent that it holds that the proper remedy is dismissal.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
POLEN, C.J., GUNTHER, STONE, WARNER, FARMER, KLEIN, STEVENSON, SHAHOOD, GROSS, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur. HAZOURI, J., recused.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wanas Walls v. State, 852 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…n remand, we direct the circuit court to either dismiss the motion with leave to refile or stay proceedings on the motion pending resolution of appellant’s direct appeal and, thereafter, enter a new ruling on the motion. See Leonard; Perez v. State, 834 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(en banc). STEVENSON, GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.…
-
Lindsay v. State, 842 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…d 248, 249 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). However, even if the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the instant motion because of the pending direct appeal, instead of dismissing the motion, as this court recently noted in Washington and Perez v. State, 834 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), the better practice would have been to stay the motion until jurisdiction returned. Appellant’s conviction based on his original plea became final in September 2000, thirty days after his original sentencing; with respect to som…
-
Mitchell v. State, 846 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…ng in this court. Generally, a trial court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a post-conviction motion while the same defendant’s direct appeal is pending. See, e.g., Wilcher v. State, 805 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA), receded from in part by Perez v. State, 834 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Here, however, the direct appeal did not [*561] pertain to his original judgment and sentence, but - only to the new sentence imposed while the rule 3.850 motion was pending. The two grounds subsequently ruled on involved an ent…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Washington v. State, 823 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Wilcher v. State, 805 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)