CLARK
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court loses jurisdiction to rule on post-appeal motions upon the filing of a notice of appeal, and any order denying such a motion must be reversed.
[1] A trial court is divested of jurisdiction to rule on any motions filed after a notice of appeal has been filed, and an order denying such a motion must be reversed even i…
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 intelligence“[I]f want of jurisdiction appears at any stage of the proceedings, original or appellate, the court should notice the defect and enter an appropriate order.”
Court citing Polk County v. Sofka for the principle that jurisdictional defects must be corrected at any stage.
Clark was convicted of burglary and obstructing or resisting an officer without violence. He filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which …
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 Withdrawal Of Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
AHMOD CLARK,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 2D2024-1701
July 9, 2025
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Philippe Matthey, Judge.
Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Tosha Cohen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Laura Dempsey, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
LABRIT, Judge.
Ahmod Clark appeals from his judgment and sentences for burglary and obstructing or resisting an officer without violence. The trial court struck Mr. Clark's pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and it denied a second pro se motion he filed seeking to amend his plea. We affirm the order striking Mr. Clark's first motion without comment. But we are compelled to reverse the order denying Mr. Clark's second motion because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter it. See 84
Mr. Clark filed his second motion on July 25, 2024—three days after he filed his notice of appeal on July 22, 2024. Mr. Clark's notice of appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction to rule on any subsequent filings, including the motion filed July 25, 2024. See Mingo v. State, 914 So. 2d 1070, 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Williams v. State, 903 So. 2d 1062, 1063–64 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Sharp v. State, 884 So. 2d 510, 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Rather than striking that motion or dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction, however, the trial court denied the motion on the merits through an order dated August 9, 2024.
The parties agree that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter this order. We therefore reverse the order denying Mr. Clark's motion filed July 25, 2024, and we remand with directions to strike that motion.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with directions.
ATKINSON and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Polk Cnty. v. Sofka, 702 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 1997)
- 84 Lumber Co. v. Cooper, 656 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Sharp v. State, 884 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)