WALTER E. CURRY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 affirmed the trial court's order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus, clarifying that the denial was without prejudice.
Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus while his direct appeal from his conviction was pending. The trial court denied the petition, not…
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 Post-Conviction Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw
Walter E. Curry appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.
Curry was convicted and sentenced in August 2008. He filed a timely appeal from his judgment and sentence. In December 2008, while his direct appeal was still pending, Curry filed a petition in the trial court for writ of habeas corpus, in which he made arguments going to the merits of the underlying conviction. The trial court correctly noted that Curry’s *634motion was premature and that the trial court was without jurisdiction to rule on the issues while the appeal was pending. The trial court nevertheless denied the motion without making clear that the denial was without prejudice, and notified the defendant of his right to appeal the order. Curry appealed.
While it is clear that the trial court had no jurisdiction to render a ruling on the post-conviction petition while the judgment and sentence were pending on appeal in this Court, it is also clear that the trial court intended that the ruling be without prejudice to Curry to timely pursue his post-conviction remedies at the conclusion of his direct appeal. See Marshall v. State, 481 So.2d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). We therefore affirm the order denying relief, as modified.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S.B. v. Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 18 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…PER CURIAM. DENIED. See Eato v. State, 7 So. 3d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(e). HAWKES, C.J., BARFIELD and BENTON, JJ., concur.…
-
Jones v. State, 127 So. 3d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…of habeas corpus in the trial court, which raised arguments as to the merits of his underlying conviction. The trial court correctly found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition as Jones’s direct appeal was pending. See Curry v. State, 7 So. 3d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Marshall v. State, 481 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The trial court, however, denied the petition, rather than dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. “While it is clear that the trial court had no jurisdiction to r…
Authorities Cited
- Marshall v. State, 481 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)