JOHNNY ARIEL RIVERA, 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 appellate court vacated the trial court's order granting reconsideration because the trial court lacked jurisdiction while the appeal was pending, and affirmed the original order denying the defendant's motions.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant a motion for reconsideration while an appeal of the original order is pending.
[2] Filing a notice of appeal before a trial court disposes of a motion for reconsideration constitutes abandonment of that motion.
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 intelligenceDefendant filed motions to correct and clarify his sentence. The trial court denied these motions. While an appeal was pending, the trial court grante…
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 Motion To Clarify Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Johnny Rivera appeals an order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence and motion to clarify sentence. While this appeal was pending, the trial court granted a motion for reconsideration. Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the motion for reconsideration while this appeal was pending, we vacate that order and affirm the order denying Rivera’s motions.
The procedural history of this case reveals that Rivera filed a motion seeking jail time credit and a motion for clarification of sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court entered a single order denying both motions. Rivera then filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to clarify sentence. In this motion, Rivera abandoned his jail time credit claim. Before the trial court ruled on the motion for reconsideration, Rivera filed a notice of appeal of the order denying his rule 3.800(a) motions.1 During the pendency of the appeal, the trial court granted Rivera’s motion for reconsideration and clarified the commencement date of Rivera’s sentences.
The order granting Rivera’s motion for reconsideration is a nullity because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order while the appeal of the original order was pending in this court. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.600; Hankerson v. State, 879 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); see also Dragomirecky v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 891 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Accordingly, we vacate the order granting the motion for reconsideration of the motion to clarify sentence and affirm the order denying the motion to allow jail time credit. We render this decision without prejudice to the defendant to once again seek a ruling on his motion for clarification from the trial court.
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN, SAWAYA and ORFINGER, JJ., concur. . By filing his notice of appeal before the trial court disposed of that motion, Rivera abandoned his motion for reconsideration. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(h)(3); Moore v. State, 789 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carter v. State, 929 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…. 2d 551, 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Here, the trial court’s order is a nullity because the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order while the appeal of the same subject matter was pending in this court.1 See Fla. R.App. P. 9.600; Rivera v. State, 913 So. 2d 769, 770 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Hankerson, 879 So. 2d at 71-72. Further, as the trial court pointed out in denying rule 3.850 relief, Carter’s claims are matters to be raised on direct appeal. ORDER VACATED; APPEAL DISMISSED. THOMPSON and MONACO, J…
-
LeGRAND v. State, 31 So. 3d 924 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…(Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Accordingly, trial court appropriately dismissed Appellant’s motion for lack of jurisdiction with leave to re-file after this appeal becomes final. See Hogarth v. State, 970 So. 2d 880, 880 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Rivera v. State, 913 So. 2d 769, 770 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). AFFIRMED. WOLF and LEWIS, JJ., concur. . Nelson v. State, 274 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).…
-
Pace v. State, 919 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…f Pace’s rule 3.850 motion. The law is well established that, once an appeal is filed, the trial court loses jurisdiction with regard to the matter which is the subject of the appeal. As such, the May 2, 2005 order is a nullity. See Rivera v. State, 913 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); see also Fla. R.App. P. 9.600(b). PETITION DENIED. SHARP, W. and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dragomirecky v. Town OF Ponce Inlet, 891 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Moore v. State, 789 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Hankerson v. State, 879 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)