ARSENIO STEWART, 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.
Arsenio Stewart appealed the trial court's denial of his pro se motion for additional jail credit filed during the pendency of his direct appeal. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion because it was filed after notice of appeal, and the motion should have been stricken as a nullity because Stewart was represented by appellate counsel.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion because it was filed during the pendency of the direct appeal. Additionally, the trial court should have stricken the pro se motion as a nullity because Stewart was represented by appellate counsel and the motion did not contain an unequivocal request to discharge counsel.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a motion for jail credit when a direct appeal of the judgment and sentence is pending.
[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 jurisdictional rule preventing trial courts from ruling on motions after 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 intelligenceStewart filed a pro se motion for additional jail credit pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) while his direct appeal (case number …
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 Additional Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
Arsenio Stewart appeals the summary denial of his pro se motion for additional jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court correctly 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. 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*348ing 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 Stewart 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. See Padilla-Padial, 152 So.3d at 52; cf. Sheppard v. State, 17 So.3d 275, 281 (Fla.2000) (noting that Florida appellate courts have uniformly struck pro se petitions for relief filed in appellate courts where defendant was represented by counsel (citing Carlisle v. State, 773 So.2d 647, 648 (Fla. 5th DOA 2000))).
We reverse the order, as it was entered without jurisdiction. Stewart should file a facially sufficient rule 3.801 motion within one year of the mandate issuing in, his direct appeal.1
REVERSED.
ORFINGER, TORPY and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Higgins v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Sheppard v. State, 17 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 2009)
- Romine v. State, 151 So. 3d 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)
- Davis v. State, 773 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Padilla-Padial v. State, 152 So. 3d 51 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)
- 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)