Baldino v. State

225 So. 3d 280, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11218, 2017 WL 3279137
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 2, 2017·No. No. 4D17-924·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this appeal of a trial court order denying appellant’s motion to correct ille[281]*281gal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), we conclude that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule because appellant’s direct appeal was also pending in this Court. Therefore, we reverse and remand to the trial court to dismiss the motion without prejudice to appellant’s right to refile it after final disposition of the direct appeal. See Everett v. State, 993 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Major v. State, 882 So.2d 1058 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Campbell-Eley v. State, 763 So.2d 539 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 789 So.2d 348 (Fla. 2000),

Gerber, C.J., Warner and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.

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

Baldino v. State, 225 So. 3d 280, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11218, 2017 WL 3279137 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

225 So. 3d 280 (Baldino v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Campbell-Eley v. State
763 So. 2d 539 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Major v. State
882 So. 2d 1058 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Everett v. State
993 So. 2d 1116 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)