Antoine v. State

680 So. 2d 1070, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 10339, 1996 WL 557615
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 2, 1996·No. No. 96-2876·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s appeal of his judgment and sentence was pending at the time his motion for correction ' of sentence was filed and heard. The trial court was therefore without jurisdiction to entertain the motion. State v. Meneses, 392 So.2d 905 (Fla.1981); Alexander v. State, 600 So.2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Young v. State, 585 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

We accordingly affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to correct sentence without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a new motion after the mandate is issued in the direct appeal.

Affirmed.

STONE, SHAHOOD and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Antoine v. State, 680 So. 2d 1070, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 10339, 1996 WL 557615 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

680 So. 2d 1070 (Antoine v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Henderson v. State
707 So. 2d 964 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)