HIGGINS
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 lacks jurisdiction to rule on a motion for jail credit filed during the pendency of a direct appeal, and such a pro se motion filed by a represented defendant without an unequivocal request to discharge counsel must be stricken as a nullity.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a motion for jail credit filed during the pendency of a direct appeal.
[2] A pro se motion filed by a defendant who is represented by appellate counsel must be stricken as a nullity unless the motion contains an unequivocal request to discharge…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoseph Higgins filed a pro se motion seeking seventeen additional days of jail credit for time served prior to sentencing while his direct appeal was …
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.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
JOSEPH RYAN HIGGINS,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 2D2025-0054
August 1, 2025
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Elizabeth Rice, Judge.
Joseph Ryan Higgins, pro se. SLEET, Judge. Joseph Higgins appeals the order summarily denying his motion for jail credit filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. We reverse and remand for the postconviction court to strike the motion. During the pendency of his direct appeal, Mr. Higgins filed a pro se motion seeking an additional seventeen days of credit for jail time served prior to sentencing. The court summarily denied the motion on the merits. Because Mr. Higgins' motion was filed during the pendency of his direct appeal, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion.
2
See Stewart v. State, 179 So. 3d 347, 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). Additionally, Mr. Higgins was represented by appellate counsel when he filed his pro se motion for jail credit. Since the motion did not contain an unequivocal request to discharge counsel, the motion should have been stricken as a nullity. See Logan v. State, 846 So. 2d 472, 475-76 (Fla. 2003); Padilla-Padial v. State, 152 So. 3d 51, 52 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). Reversed and remanded. VILLANTI and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Logan v. State, 846 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2003)
- Padilla-Padial v. State, 152 So. 3d 51 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)
- Arsenio Stewart v. State, 179 So. 3d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)