Buckhalter v. State

168 So. 3d 348, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10679, 2015 WL 4231705
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 14, 2015·No. No. 1D15-0424·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for postcon-viction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because the appellant’s direct appeal of his judgment and sentence was pending at the time, the trial court was without jurisdiction to rule on the appellant’s postconviction motion. See Day v. State, 770 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (holding that effective January 13, 2000, a party may not file a rule 3.800(a) motion during the pen-dency of a direct appeal); Bunkley v. State, 800 So.2d 663 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that a trial court is without jurisdiction to rule on a motion for postconviction relief during the pendency of a direct appeal).

Accordingly, we quash the order denying the appellant’s postconviction motion.

ORDER QUASHED.

THOMAS, MARSTILLER, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

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

Buckhalter v. State, 168 So. 3d 348, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10679, 2015 WL 4231705 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

168 So. 3d 348 (Buckhalter v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Adeoye v. State
214 So. 3d 789 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Femi Adeoye v. State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017
Jones v. State
217 So. 3d 1068 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)