WILLIAM A. CUNNINGHAM, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.170(J) cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
We affirm Cunningham’s convictions and sentences for attempted capital sexual battery and lewd and lascivious assault. We note, however, that Cunningham filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea in the trial court during the thirty-day period allowed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(0 but after he had filed his notice of appeal.1 Because the notice of appeal had been filed, the trial court was without jurisdiction to consider Cunningham’s motion at that point. While we express no opinion on the merits of Cunningham’s motion, on remand, the trial court must consider and rule on it.
Affirmed, but remanded for further proceedings.
CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur. . Cunningham was no longer represented by counsel when he filed his pro se motion to withdraw his plea.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sharp v. State, 884 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…plea. Procedurally, Sharp’s second motion to withdraw plea 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…
-
Carroll v. State, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)