ANDREW MANSURI-MASON, 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.
Andrew Mansuri-Mason appealed a trial court order dismissing his motion for a supersedeas bond, arguing the trial court retained jurisdiction to rule on post-trial release motions even after the record was transmitted to the appellate court. The court reversed and remanded, holding that Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600(d), effective January 1, 1997, permits trial courts to consider post-trial release motions during pending appeals.
The trial court retains jurisdiction to consider motions for post-trial release during pending appeals. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600(d), effective January 1, 1997, supersedes prior case law holding that concurrent jurisdiction terminates upon transmission of the record and specifically permits trial courts to entertain post-trial release motions without regard to the procedural stage of the appeal.
[1] A trial court retains jurisdiction to consider motions for post-trial release even after the record has been transmitted to the appellate court, pursuant to Florida Rule…
[2] Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600(d) supersedes prior case law holding that a trial court's concurrent jurisdiction terminates upon transmission of the record to…
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“The lower tribunal shall retain jurisdiction to consider motions pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) and in conjunction with post-trial release pursuant to rule 9.140(h).”
This quote establishes that Rule 9.600(d) explicitly grants trial courts jurisdiction over post-trial release motions during pending appeals, which is the core holding of the decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMansuri-Mason was convicted and sentenced, then transferred to prison. He filed a motion requesting post-trial release in the trial court. The trial c…
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 Supersedeas Bond cases and more on FLexlaw
ORDER ON MOTION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER DISMISSING MOTION FOR DEFENDANT’S SUPERSE-DEAS BOND
Andrew Mansuri-Mason seeks review of the trial court’s order entered January 4, 2010, that dismissed his motion for order setting supersedeas bond filed in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.691.1 We review the order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(h) and reverse and remand for the trial court to review the motion on its merits.
Following his conviction, sentencing, and transfer to prison, Mansuri-Mason filed a motion requesting posttrial release in the trial court. The trial court dismissed the motion, reasoning that because the record had been transmitted to the appellate court, the trial court was without concurrent jurisdiction to address the motion. The court based the dismissal on Taylor v. State, 401 So.2d 811, 812 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In Taylor, the Fifth District relied on rule 9.600(a)2 to hold that the trial court’s concurrent jurisdiction terminates when the record is transmitted to the appellate court. The trial court also cited to Peacock v. State, 798 So.2d 909, 911 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), in which the court in a footnote recited the ruling of Taylor.
However, rule 9.600(d), which became effective on January 1, 1997, see Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 685 So.2d 773, 777, 830 (Fla. 1996), supersedes the principle stated by the court in Taylor in 1981. Rule 9.600(d) provides that in criminal appeals, “[t]he lower tribunal shall retain jurisdiction to consider motions pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) and in conjunction with post-trial release pursuant to rule 9.140(h).” To the extent that posttrial release is properly subsumed under the broad category of “any ... procedural matter” over which the trial court retains concurrent jurisdiction before transmission of the record to the appeals court, see rule 9.600(a), the subsequent amendment specifically addressing posttrial release motions was intended to permit *70the trial court to entertain such motions without regard to the procedural stage of the appeal. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.600(d) (Comm. Notes, 1996 Amend.) (“New rule 9.600(d) recognizes the jurisdiction of the trial courts, while an appeal is pending, to rule on motions for post-trial release, as authorized by rule 9.140(g) [now rule 9.140(h).]”). The State agrees that the trial court has jurisdiction to rule on the motion.
Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s Order Dismissing Defendant’s Motion for Supersedeas Bond and remand the matter for the trial court to address the appellant’s Motion for Order Setting Supersede-as Bond on its merits.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
DAVIS and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 685 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1996)
- The Fla. Bar. in re Fla. Rules of App. Procedure, 387 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 1980)
- Taylor v. State, 401 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Peacock v. State, 798 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)