Betts v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Betts v. State

829 So. 2d 977, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15854, 2002 WL 31432378

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 1, 2002

DocketNo. 1D02-2401

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 829 So. 2d 977 (Betts v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Betts v. State, 829 So. 2d 977, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15854, 2002 WL 31432378 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his third and fourth motions for postconviction relief, brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, in which he sought to withdraw from his plea based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. Because the appellant’s third motion raised some of these same claims of ineffective assistance of counsel as in his second motion, the denial of which was pending in this Court at the time the trial court ruled on the third motion, the trial court was without jurisdiction to rule on this third motion. Darling v. State, 799 So.2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); McKeever v. State, 808 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Under such circumstances, the trial court was required to dismiss the appellant’s third motion for lack of jurisdiction. See id. The appellant’s fourth motion does not raise related claims but is untimely and an abuse of process; therefore, its denial is affirmed.

We accordingly vacate the portion of the order denying the third motion, affirm the part of the order denying the fourth motion, and remand for the trial court to dismiss the third motion.

VACATED in part, AFFIRMED in part, and REMANDED.

BARFIELD, MINER and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his third and fourth motions for postconviction relief, brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, in which he sought to withdraw from his plea based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. Because the appellant’s third motion raised some of these same claims of ineffective assistance of counsel as in his second motion, the denial of which was pending in this Court at the time the trial court ruled on the third motion, the trial court was without jurisdiction to rule on this third motion. Darling v. State, 799 So.2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); McKeever v. State, 808 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Under such circumstances, the trial court was required to dismiss the appellant’s third motion for lack of jurisdiction. See id. The appellant’s fourth motion does not raise related claims but is untimely and an abuse of process; therefore, its denial is affirmed.

We accordingly vacate the portion of the order denying the third motion, affirm the part of the order denying the fourth motion, and remand for the trial court to dismiss the third motion.

VACATED in part, AFFIRMED in part, and REMANDED.

BARFIELD, MINER and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

829 So. 2d 977, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15854, 2002 WL 31432378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/betts-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack