JEREMY TYRONE HICKMAN
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.
Jeremy Tyrone Hickman appealed his judgment and sentence following a nolo contendere plea without expressly reserving appellate rights or raising a meritorious issue. The appellate court affirmed the judgment and sentence but remanded for the trial court to strike a pro se motion to withdraw plea that was filed after the notice of appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction.
The court affirmed the judgment and sentence because Hickman failed to expressly reserve appellate rights or raise a meritorious issue under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(A). The court remanded for the trial court to strike the pro se motion to withdraw plea as null because the notice of appeal filed first divested the trial court of jurisdiction.
[1] A defendant who enters a nolo contendere plea without expressly reserving the right to appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i) or present…
[2] A pro se motion to withdraw a guilty or nolo contendere plea filed after a notice of appeal has been filed is divested of trial court jurisdiction and should be struck as…
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 intelligenceHickman entered a nolo contendere plea and was represented by counsel during the plea and sentencing proceedings. After entering his plea, Hickman fil…
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 Reservation Of Right To Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jeremy Tyrone Hickman appeals his judgment and sentence after entering a nolo contendere plea. Because Hickman did not expressly reserve the right to appeal any issue pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i) or argue a meritorious issue that may otherwise be raised in a direct appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii), we affirm the judgment and sentence. See Schaefer v. State, 343 So. 3d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (citing Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114, 119 (Fla. 2000)).
Additionally, Hickman was represented by counsel during the plea and sentencing. Upon entering his plea, Hickman filed a pro se notice of appeal and subsequently filed a pro se document, the contents of which indicate it should be treated as a motion to withdraw plea. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.170(l). The notice of appeal was filed first, which divested the trial court of jurisdiction to consider the motion to withdraw plea. See Carroll v. State, 266 So. 3d 1270, 1272 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019). Because our record indicates the motion to withdraw plea is still pending and Hickman was represented by counsel at the time it was filed, we remand for the trial court to strike the motion as null. See Syverson v. State, 373 So. 3d 1270, 1272 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023) (citing Payet v. State, 357 So. 3d 172, 173 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)).
AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
EDWARDS, C.J., and MAKAR and KILBANE, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.