GYDEN II
v.
STATE
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.
Bernard Gyden II appealed the trial court's dismissal of his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction while a habeas corpus petition asserting ineffective assistance of appellate counsel was pending before the appellate court. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court had concurrent jurisdiction to consider both proceedings because they involve separate and distinct issues.
The trial court erred in dismissing the motion for lack of jurisdiction. Trial courts have jurisdiction to consider Rule 3.850 motions challenging trial-level representation even while appellate courts are considering separate habeas petitions challenging appellate counsel's effectiveness. The two proceedings are separate and distinct, involving different counsel and different courts, and do not create a substantial risk of conflicting rulings.
[1] A trial court retains jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 alleging ineffective assi…
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“Since the two judicial attacks on petitioner's convictions and sentences . . . were thus separate and distinct, there was no danger . . . of conflicting and confusing rulings by different courts on the same issues . . . . We do not perceive so substantial a problem of confusion as to require us to hold that the pendency of one kind of proceeding deprives the other court of jurisdiction to proceed.”
Florida Supreme Court in Francois v. Klein, 431 So. 2d 165, 166 (Fla. 1983), establishing the dual jurisdiction doctrine.
Gyden filed an amended motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, challenging his conviction. Simultaneously, Gy…
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 Original Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
ON CONFESSION OF ERROR
Bernard Gyden, II appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his amended motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because Gyden’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel) was pending before this Court at the same time, the trial court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate Gyden’s motion for postconviction relief, and dismissed the motion.
As the State properly and commendably concedes, the trial court erred because it did have jurisdiction to consider Gyden’s motion for postconviction relief even while there remained pending before this Court an original proceeding asserting a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. As the Florida Supreme Court said:
In Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1981), we recognized that allegations of ineffectiveness of appellate counsel are not cognizable under a Rule 3.850 motion because they do not relate to anything done by or transpiring before the trial court. Such allegations, we held, should be addressed to the appellate court by means of a petition for habeas corpus. On the other hand, allegations of ineffectiveness of legal counsel at one’s trial are properly presented to the trial court by a Rule 3.850 motion. Since the two judicial attacks on petitioner’s convictions and sentences . . . were thus separate and distinct, there was no danger . . . of conflicting and confusing rulings by different courts on the same issues . . . . We do not perceive so substantial a problem of confusion as to require us to hold that the pendency of one kind of proceeding deprives the other court of jurisdiction to proceed.
Francois v. Klein, 431 So. 2d 165, 166 (Fla. 1983) (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted). See also Reidy v. State, 30 So. 3d 705 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010);
Evans v. State, 962 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); White v. State, 855 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Gawronski v. State, 801 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
We reverse and remand for the trial court to address and, as appropriate, to adjudicate Gyden’s amended motion for postconviction relief.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1981)
- Francois v. Klein, 431 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1983)
- Gawronski v. State, 801 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Fitzgerald Livingston White v. State, 855 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Kanisky Evans v. State, 962 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- Reidy v. State, 30 So. 3d 705 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)