LUIS FLORES, 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.
Luis Flores appealed his guilty plea conviction for attempted murder. Seven days after filing his initial notice of appeal, he filed a motion to withdraw his plea claiming his counsel misadvised him about sentencing consequences. The Fourth District reversed the trial court's denial of the motion, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider it after the notice of appeal divested it of jurisdiction.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion to withdraw plea because the notice of appeal filed on September 9, 2015, divested the trial court of jurisdiction over any subsequently-filed motions, including the motion to withdraw plea filed on September 16, 2015.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea filed after a notice of appeal has been filed.
[2] A notice of appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction to rule on subsequently filed motions, including motions to withdraw a plea.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 notice of appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction to rule on appellant's subsequently-filed ... motion to withdraw plea.”
Establishes the core holding that once a notice of appeal is filed, the trial court loses jurisdiction over subsequent motions to withdraw plea
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlores pleaded guilty to attempted murder in the second degree and possession of cannabis, receiving a mandatory 25-year sentence for attempted murder…
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 Waiver Of Issues On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Luis Flores appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw plea. As discussed below, the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion to withdraw plea because the court did not have jurisdiction to entertain that motion. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate its order.
Background
The State charged Appellant with attempted murder in the second degree and possession of cannabis. Appellant pleaded guilty to both counts. The trial court sentenced Appellant to the minimum mandatory of twenty-five years’ imprisonment for attempted murder.1
On September 9, 2015, Appellant’s attorney filed a notice of appeal with this Court, appealing the conviction, judgment, and sentence rendered by the trial court. On September 16, 2015, seven days later, Appellant’s attorney filed a motion in the trial court to withdraw Appellant’s guilty plea.2 In this motion, Appellant claimed that his plea was involuntary because his counsel affirmatively misadvised him regarding the consequences of the plea. Appellant asserted that he “was told by the defense counsel that if he open plead ... he then will be granted a ‘youthful offender sentence.’ And that he will not be given the min/ mand sentence of 25 years.” After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Shortly thereafter, Appellant filed a second notice of appeal, this time appealing the denial of his motion to withdraw plea.
Analysis
The trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion to withdraw because, as a result of the September 9 appeal to this Court, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the September 16 motion. We recently confronted a similar situation and held that “[t]he notice of appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction to rule on appellant’s subsequently-filed ... motion to withdraw plea.” Walker v. State, 203 So.3d 192, 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (citing Copeland v. State, 867 So.2d 643, 643 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)); see also McCray v. State, 840 So.2d 274, 275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Sister courts have held the same. See, e.g., Smith v. State, 113 So.3d 110, 111 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); Wilson v. State, 814 So.2d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
We would consider Appellant’s arguments on the merits with respect to the conviction, judgment, and sentence (the issues raised by his September 9 notice of appeal), but Appellant has failed to address these issues in his initial brief, concentrating instead on the denial of his motion to withdraw plea. “When points, positions, facts and supporting authorities *70are omitted from the brief, a court is entitled to believe that such are waived, abandoned, or deemed by counsel to be unworthy.” Polyglycoat Corp. v. Hirsch Distribs., Inc., 442 So.2d 958, 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). “[I]t is not the function of the Court to rebrief an appeal.” Id.
Conclusion
Because the trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider Appellant’s motion to withdraw plea, we reverse and remand with directions to vacate the order. This holding is without prejudice to Appellant filing a new motion to withdraw pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Walker, 203 So.3d at 192; McCray v. State, 840 So.2d at 275.
Reversed and remanded.
Damoorgian, Gerber and Forst, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Berben v. State, 268 So. 3d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
-
Johnson v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)…issenting) (“This requirement of specific argument and briefing is one of the most important concepts of the appellate process. Indeed, it is not the role of the appellate court to act as standby counsel for the parties.”); see also Flores v. State, 211 So. 3d 68, 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“[I]t is not the function of the Court to rebrief an appeal.” (alteration in original)). Therefore, we have no authority to search the record or briefs for new facts and reformulate a party’s argument on their behalf. As a…
Authorities Cited
- Polyglycoat Corp. v. Hirsch Distribs., Inc., 442 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Wilson v. State, 814 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Walker v. State, 203 So. 3d 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Moore v. State, 840 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Smith v. State, 113 So. 3d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
- Copeland v. State, 867 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)