BOBBY LATULIP, 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.
Bobby LaTulip appealed the summary dismissal of his motion for jail credit filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court dismissed the motion, concluding it lacked jurisdiction because another 3.800(a) motion was pending on appeal. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court had jurisdiction because the two motions raised unrelated issues.
The trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the second 3.800(a) motion because the issue raised in the second motion (jail credit for probation violations) was unrelated to the issue raised in the earlier motion (prison credit based on sentencing documentation). A trial court may rule on the merits of a subsequent 3.800(a) motion if it raises issues not related to an earlier pending motion.
[1] A trial court retains jurisdiction to consider a new postconviction motion while a prior postconviction appeal is pending, provided the issues raised in the new motion ar…
[2] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider a subsequent postconviction motion if it raises issues related to a prior motion for which an appeal is currently pending.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Rule 3.800(a) provides that a party may not file a motion under that subdivision during the pendency of a direct appeal from a judgment or sentence.”
States the general rule limiting 3.800(a) motions during pending appeals
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaTulip filed an initial 3.800(a) motion in case 2D03-4718 on June 2, 2003, and an amended motion on July 25, 2003, both seeking prison credit based o…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) Motion For Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
Bobby LaTulip challenges the summary dismissal of his motion for jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the motion, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
LaTulip filed a rule 3.800(a) motion in case number 2D03-4718 on June 2, 2003, followed by an amended motion on July 25, 2003. The trial court denied both on July 25, 2003. LaTulip filed a timely appeal. While that appeal was pending, LaTulip filed the 3.800(a) motion for jail credit that is the subject of this appeal. Because of the pending appeal, the trial court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the motion and dismissed it without prejudice to LaTulip’s filing a proper motion when jurisdiction again vested in the trial court.
Rule 3.800(a) provides that a party may not file a motion under that subdivision during the pendency of a direct appeal from a judgment or sentence. Additionally, a trial court does not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of such a motion if another rule 3.800(a) motion that is the subject of a pending appeal has raised the same issue or if the two motions are “sufficiently related to divest the trial court of jurisdiction.” Lovett v. State, 851 So. 2d 851, 852-53 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quoting Parrish v. State, 816 So. 2d 146, 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)); see also Gaines v. State, 806 So. 2d 575, 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Conversely, a trial court may rule on the merits of a subsequent rule 3.800(a) motion if it raises issues that are not related to the earlier motion. Lovett, 851 So. 2d at 852.
In 2D03-4718, LaTulip sought prison credit and claimed that “the sentencing judge failed to complete his responsibility when he did not place a check in the appropriate box on judgment and sentence indicating that defendant who was sentenced after probation was revoked was entited [sic] to prison credit for time previously served.” In this case, LaTulip’s motion sought jail credit for time served in connection with his various violations of probation. Because the issue raised in this motion is unrelated to the issue raised in the earlier motion, the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the merits of this motion. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court address the merits of LaTulip’s motion.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
STRINGER and SILBERMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 20 So. 3d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…tate, 806 So. 2d 575, 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Conversely, a trial court may rule on the merits of a subsequent rule 3.800(a) motion if it raises issues that are not related to the earlier motion. Lovett, 851 So. 2d at 852. [*1026] Latulip v. State, 884 So. 2d 254, 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). In this case, the first motion challenged whether Defendant’s offense, as a matter of law, qualified for PRR sentencing; the second motion challenged the concurrent sentencing of PRR and HFO sentences, seeking to vacate the…
-
Campo v. State, 24 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…ay not file a motion to correct an illegal sentence under this subdivision during the time allowed for the filing of a motion under subdivision (b)(1) or during the pendency of a direct appeal.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a) (2009), cf. Latulip v. State, 884 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (finding that a trial court does not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of a motion if another rule 3.800(a) motion that is the subject of a pending appeal has raised the same issue or if the two motions are sufficiently rel…
-
Reynolds v. State, 28 So. 3d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…motion concerned credit for prior prison time served, not jail time. The postconviction court erred in dismissing this claim because the issue raised in the instant motion is unrelated to the issue raised in the earlier motion. In Latulip v. State, 884 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), this court reversed the dismissal of a motion for jail credit filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a) under circumstances similar to this case. In [the earlier appeal], LaTulip sought prison credit and claimed that “the sentencing judge…
Authorities Cited
- Bryant Parrish v. State, 816 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Robinson v. State, 816 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Lovett v. State, 851 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- N.E.B. v. State, 806 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Gaines v. State, 806 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)