ANGEL PADILLA-PADIAL, 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.
Angel Padilla-Padial appealed the summary denial of his pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence regarding jail credit. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion because it was filed during the pendency of his direct appeal, which divests the lower court of jurisdiction over matters related to the appealed order.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion because once notice of appeal is filed, the lower court is divested of jurisdiction to proceed with matters related to the appealed order. Additionally, the pro se motion should have been stricken as a nullity because the defendant was represented by counsel and did not unequivocally request discharge of counsel.
[1] A trial court is divested of jurisdiction to rule on a motion related to an order once a notice of appeal has been filed.
[2] A pro se motion filed by a defendant who is represented by appellate counsel, and which does not unequivocally request to discharge counsel, should be stricken as a nulli…
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“once notice of appeal is filed, lower court is divested of jurisdiction to proceed with matters related to appealed order”
Establishes the fundamental principle that trial courts lose jurisdiction over matters connected to appealed orders upon filing of notice of appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePadilla-Padial filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), raising claims for additional j…
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 For Correction Of Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
Angel Padilla-Padial appeals the summary denial of his pro se “Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence,” which was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), and raised his alleged entitlement to additional jail credit. The trial court treated it as a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801 motion to correct jail credit, and denied it on the merits. However, because the motion was filed during the pendency of Padilla-Padial’s direct appeal of his judgment and sentence (case number 5D13-3356),1 the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion. See Mann-Stack v. Homeside Lending, Inc., 982 So.2d 72, 73-74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding that, once notice of appeal is filed, lower court is divested of jurisdiction to proceed with matters related to appealed order). Additionally, since appellate counsel represented Padilla-Padial when he filed his pro se motion, and the motion did not contain an unequivocal request to discharge counsel, the trial court should have stricken the motion as a nullity. Cf. Sheppard v. State, 17 So.3d 275, 281 (Fla.2009) (noting that Florida appellate courts have uniformly held that pro se petitions for relief filed in appellate courts were stricken where defendant was represented by counsel (citing Carlisle v. State, 773 So.2d 647, 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000))).
We recognize that there may be cases involving jail credit issues that, if not promptly resolved, would result in a defendant having served the legal portion of the sentence prior to the conclusion of the direct appeal. We would urge the State and defendants to work cooperatively to correct those errors. If the justice of the individual case requires it due to circumstances such as a short sentence, a joint *53motion by the parties requesting relinquishment of jurisdiction to the trial court for the limited purpose of correcting an illegal sentence may be appropriate. See Amendments to Fla. R. of Crim. P. 3.111(e) & 3.800 & Fla. R. of App. P. 9.020(h), 9.HO, & 9.600, 761 So.2d 1015, 1019 (Fla.1999). We encourage the Appellate Rules Committee to consider revising Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600(d) to give the trial courts concurrent jurisdiction to consider such matters in a fashion that would not disrupt the orderly resolution of the defendant’s direct appeal.
We reverse the trial court’s order, as it was entered without jurisdiction. This is without prejudice to Padilla-Padial filing an appropriate and timely rule 3.801 motion to correct jail credit after his judgment and sentence become final.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
LAWSON and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arsenio Stewart v. State, 179 So. 3d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…ied it on the merits. However, because the motion was filed during the pendency of. Stewart’s direct appeal of his judgment and sentence (case number 5D14-2633), the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion. See Padilla-Padial v. State, 152 So. 3d 51, 52 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014); see also Mann-Stack v. Homeside Lending, Inc., 982 So. 2d 72, 73-74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (hold [*348] ing that, once notice of appeal is filed, lower court is divested of jurisdiction to proceed with matters related to appeale…
-
Smart v. State, 200 So. 3d 1285 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…N, J. Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on Smart’s motion to correct illegal sentence during the pendency of his direct appeal, we reverse the order denying the motion.1 See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a)(1); Padilla-Padial v. State, 152 So. 3d 51, 52 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). We express no opinion on the merits of the motion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. LAWSON, C.J., and PALMER, J„ concur. . Although the judgment and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, the mandate did not issue until after…
-
Crandall v. State, 376 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)…providing that “[p]ro se pleadings filed by a criminal defendant who is represented by counsel are generally treated as a nullity unless they include an unequivocal request to discharge counsel” (citation omitted)); see also Padilla-Padial v. State, 152 So. 3d 51, 52 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (“[S]ince appellate counsel represented Padilla-Padial when he filed his pro se motion [to correct illegal sentence], and the motion did not contain an unequivocal request to discharge counsel, the trial court should have str…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sheppard v. State, 17 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 2009)
- Amendments TO Fla. Rules OF Crim. Procedure 3.111(e) & 3.800 & Fla. Rules OF App. Procedure 9.020(h), 791 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2001)
- Davis v. State, 773 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Mann-Stack v. Homeside Lending, Inc., 982 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Robert E.H. Carlisle v. State, 773 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)