KENNETH RAY BEAUCHAMP, 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.
The appellate court dismissed a motion to vacate judgment and sentence filed directly with it for lack of jurisdiction and denied a habeas corpus petition, affirming the lower court's judgment. The court found no reversible error in the appeal.
The appellate court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a motion to vacate judgment and sentence filed initially with it. The grounds for relief in the habeas corpus petition were without merit, and the appellant failed to demonstrate reversible error in the direct appeal.
“We have no jurisdiction to entertain a motion to vacate filed under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 initially in this court, and said motion is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction to consider same.”
Establishes the court's lack of jurisdiction for the motion to vacate.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Kenneth Ray Beauchamp filed a motion to vacate judgment and sentence and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Courts cases and more on FLexlaw
During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant filed in this court a motion to vacate judgment and sentence under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. Chapter 924, Appendix, and an original petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this court.
We have no jurisdiction to entertain a motion to vacate filed under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 initially in this court, and said motion is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction to consider same.
The grounds asserted for relief by appellant in his habeas corpus petition are materially similar to the grounds relied upon for reversal in this appeal. Such grounds being without merit, the habeas corpus petition is denied.
The court has carefully considered the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, and it is our view that the appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error. The judgment appealed is therefore
Affirmed.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.