ROBERT NELSON BALDWIN, 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.
Robert Nelson Baldwin appeals his conviction and sentence for lewd and lascivious molestation of a child under twelve years old. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejecting Baldwin's argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to proceed while a certiorari petition regarding a pretrial ruling was pending before the appellate court.
The trial court retained jurisdiction to proceed with trial and impose sentence because when a certiorari petition involves a non-final order, the lower court retains continuing jurisdiction to enter all orders, including the final order disposing of the case, unless the appellate court has entered a stay or order preventing further action. No such stay or order existed in this case.
[1] A trial court retains jurisdiction to proceed with a case, including entering a final order, unless an appellate court has entered a stay or an order that otherwise preve…
[2] The filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari concerning a non-final order invokes the appellate court's original jurisdiction.
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 intelligence“Appellant argues that any action taken by an appellate court divests the lower tribunal of jurisdiction until the appellate court's mandate is issued.”
Statement of Baldwin's jurisdictional argument on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePrior to trial, Baldwin moved in limine to exclude certain collateral witnesses, and the trial court granted the motion. The prosecutor sought to appe…
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 Continuing Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
Robert Nelson Baldwin, challenges his conviction and sentence for lewd and lascivious molestation of a child less than twelve years of age. We affirm all issues on appeal, and write only to address Appellant’s argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction when the case was tried.
Prior to trial, Appellant moved in limine to exclude the testimony of certain collateral witnesses. The trial court granted the motion and excluded the witnesses from testifying in the State’s case-in-chief. The court orally granted a continuance when the prosecutor stated his intent to “appeal” the ruling. This court treated the State’s “Notice of Interlocutory Appeal” as a petition for a writ of certiorari, granted the writ, and found that the trial court failed to make inquiries into reason*992able alternatives prior to imposing a categorical exclusion. See State v. Baldwin, 978 So .2d 807, 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). After this court’s opinion issued, but prior to the issuance of the mandate, Appellant’s trial commenced and he was found guilty as charged. The trial court imposed Appellant’s sentence after the mandate issued.
Appellant argues that any action taken by an appellate court divests the lower tribunal of jurisdiction until the appellate court’s mandate is issued. The issue of jurisdiction is strictly a legal one. Therefore, this court reviews the trial court’s jurisdiction de novo. Jacobsen v. Ross Stores, 882 So.2d 431, 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Here, the State sought review of a non-final order with what this court treated as a petition for writ of certiorari. The filing of a petition for writ of certiorari involving a non-final order invokes this court’s original jurisdiction. Fla. R.App. P. 9.030. In such instances, a lower court retains “continuing jurisdiction to enter all orders, including the final order disposing of the ease, unless the appellate court has entered a stay or an order that otherwise prevents further action .... ” Philip J. Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice § 1.6 (Thomson West 2009). See also Fla. R.App. P. Rule 9.130(f). Here, no such stay or order existed at the time of jury selection, trial, or judgment. Therefore, the trial court retained the necessary jurisdiction to proceed with each phase of trial.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the trial court’s imposition of judgment and sentence.
WOLF, WEBSTER, and CLARK, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spatcher v. State, 228 So. 3d 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…patcher’s probation and sentence him to prison. See Aponte v. State, 896 So. 2d 836, 838 (Fla 1st DCA 2005); Mundorff v. State, 890 So. 2d 1234, 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). We review the issue of a trial court’s jurisdiction de novo. Baldwin v. State, 20 So. 3d 991, 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). II. The oral pronouncement at the 2011 sentencing was not entirely clear, and it conflicted -with the written sentences in both eases, which themselves conflicted with one another. Had the trial court in 2011 operated wit…
-
Petro Welt Trading Ges.m.b.h v. Brinkmann (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…l has continuing jurisdiction to enter all orders, including the final order disposing of the case, unless the appellate court has entered a stay or an order that otherwise prevents further action in the lower tribunal."); see also Baldwin v. State, 20 So. 3d 991, 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) ("The filing of a petition for writ of certiorari involving a non-final order invokes this court's original jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030. In such instances, a lower court retains 'continuing jurisdiction to enter al…
-
Williams v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…led to appeal from the ruling granting his motion to correct illegal sentence. We review issues of jurisdiction and the constitutionality of a sentence under a de novo review. Nelms v. State, 263 So. 3d 88, 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Baldwin v. State, 20 So. 3d 991, 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). In the instant case, a review of the transcript from the October 2, 2017, status hearing reveals—contrary to Mr. Williams' assertion on appeal—the postconviction court did not grant Mr. Williams' motion to correct illegal…
Authorities Cited
- Jacobsen v. Ross Stores & Sedgwick Claims, 882 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- State v. Baldwin, 978 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)