MICAH C. DAVIDSON, 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.
Micah Davidson appeals the trial court's denial of his pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which was denied solely on the basis that the court believed it lacked jurisdiction because the motion was filed after the notice of appeal. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court retained jurisdiction because the motion was timely filed before the notice of appeal was actually filed.
The trial court retained jurisdiction to rule on the motion to withdraw the plea because the motion was timely filed before the notice of appeal was actually filed. When a timely motion to withdraw a plea is pending at the time a notice of appeal is filed, the trial court maintains jurisdiction to decide the motion, and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(i) provides that appeals shall be held in abeyance until the trial court disposes of such motions.
[1] A trial court retains jurisdiction to decide a motion to withdraw a plea when the motion is timely filed and pending at the time a notice of appeal is filed.
[2] An order is rendered when a signed, written order is filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“When a timely motion to withdraw plea is pending at the time a notice of appeal is filed, the trial court maintains jurisdiction to decide the motion.”
Establishes the controlling legal rule that the trial court did not lose jurisdiction over the pending motion to withdraw the plea merely because a notice of appeal was subsequently filed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavidson filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea on October 6, 2015 (stamped into the clerk's office on October 8th). The notice of appeal was not …
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 Rendition Of Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Micah Davidson appeals the denial of his pro se motion to withdraw his plea. This was Davidson’s second motion to withdraw the plea; the first was filed by counsel and denied by the trial court. The court denied the second motion as well, on the belief that the motion had been filed after the filing of a notice of appeal, leaving the court without jurisdiction to rule.
Davidson had delivered the second motion to jail officials on October 6, 2015, and the motion was stamped into the clerk’s office on October 8th. The notice of appeal was not filed until October 12, 2015.1 The order denying the motion was not entered until the following day. When a timely motion to withdraw plea is pending *710at the time a notice of appeal is filed, the trial court maintains jurisdiction to decide the motion. See Bolden v. State, 10 So.3d 710, 710 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). Additionally, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(i) provides in pertinent part;
(i) Rendition (of an Order). An order is rendered when a signed, written order is filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal. However, unless.another applicable rule of procedure specifically provides to the contrary, if a final order has been entered and there has been filed in the lower tribunal an authorized and timely motion ... to withdraw -a plea after sentencing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(i) ,.. the’ following exceptions apply:
(3) If such a motion or motions have been filed and a notice of appeal is filed before the filing óf a signed, written order disposing of all such motions, the appeal shall be held in abeyance until the filing of a signed, written order disposing of the last motion..
The trial court erred in determining that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on Davidson’s motion to withdraw his plea. We express no opinion on the merits of the motion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WALLIS and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bolden v. State, 10 So. 3d 710 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
- Milton v. State, 10 So. 3d 710 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)