CHANTEL LOTASHA COLEMAN, 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.
Court affirmed Coleman's convictions in an Anders appeal but remanded to correct a scrivener's error in the judgment that incorrectly listed a third-degree grand theft offense as first-degree.
The trial court properly dismissed Coleman's motion to withdraw her plea filed after appeal initiation because the appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction, and the convictions are affirmed subject to correction of a sentencing judgment error.
[1] When an appeal is initiated, the trial court loses jurisdiction to consider a motion to withdraw plea filed thereafter.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChantel Coleman appealed her convictions and sentences in three cases, filing a motion to withdraw her plea after the appeal was initiated. The judgme…
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 Third Degree Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
In this Anders1 appeal, Chantel Coleman appeals her convictions and sentences in three cases. We affirm without prejudice to any right Coleman may have to file a postconviction motion raising the claims she raised in her motion to withdraw plea filed after this appeal was initiated. The trial court properly dismissed the motion because this appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction to consider the motion. See Sharp v. State, 884 So.2d 510, 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Wilson v. State, 814 So.2d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
We remand for correction of a scrivener’s eiror on the written judgment in circuit court case number 14-5604. The judgment lists the offense as “GRAND THEFT 3F” and correctly cites section 812.014(2)(c)(l), but it incorrectly lists the degree as a “First Degree Felony.” Cole*1256man was charged with third-degree grand theft in violation of section 812.014(2)(c)(1), Florida Statutes (2014), which “is grand theft of the third degree and a felony of the third degree.” Accordingly, the judgment in circuit court case number 14-5604 should be amended to reflect that the offense of grand theft is a third-degree felony-
Affirmed; remanded.
ALTENBERND, KHQUZAM, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Sharp v. State, 884 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Wilson v. State, 814 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)