Biggs v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Biggs v. State

851 So. 2d 802, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 11404, 2003 WL 21738434

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 29, 2003

DocketNo. 1D03-1993

StatusPublished

This text of 851 So. 2d 802 (Biggs 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

Biggs v. State, 851 So. 2d 802, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 11404, 2003 WL 21738434 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the trial court’s dismissal of his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which alleged several grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court summarily dismissed the appellant’s motion because it was successive and because it was without jurisdiction to rule on the motion. Because the appellant’s motion is successive, we affirm.

The trial court determined that the summary denial of the appellant’s previous rule 3.850 motion was pending on appeal with this Court at the time the appellant filed his second motion and concluded that it was without jurisdiction for that reason. Although the appellant’s appeal of a previous denial was pending on appeal at the time he filed his second motion, the issues in the motions were unrelated, so the trial court did not lose jurisdiction to rule on the subsequent motion. McFarland v. State, 808 So.2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). However, the appellant’s motion was properly dismissed as successive because he failed to show that the grounds asserted were not known and could not have been known to him at the time of his earlier motion. Zeigler v. State, 632 So.2d 48 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 830, 115 S.Ct. 104, 130 L.Ed.2d 52 (1994).

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, C.J., BROWNING and HAWKES, 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 dismissal of his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which alleged several grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court summarily dismissed the appellant’s motion because it was successive and because it was without jurisdiction to rule on the motion. Because the appellant’s motion is successive, we affirm.

The trial court determined that the summary denial of the appellant’s previous rule 3.850 motion was pending on appeal with this Court at the time the appellant filed his second motion and concluded that it was without jurisdiction for that reason. Although the appellant’s appeal of a previous denial was pending on appeal at the time he filed his second motion, the issues in the motions were unrelated, so the trial court did not lose jurisdiction to rule on the subsequent motion. McFarland v. State, 808 So.2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). However, the appellant’s motion was properly dismissed as successive because he failed to show that the grounds asserted were not known and could not have been known to him at the time of his earlier motion. Zeigler v. State, 632 So.2d 48 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 830, 115 S.Ct. 104, 130 L.Ed.2d 52 (1994).

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, C.J., BROWNING and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

851 So. 2d 802, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 11404, 2003 WL 21738434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/biggs-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack