Cannady v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cannady v. State

771 So. 2d 1266, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 14874, 2000 WL 1700191

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 15, 2000

DocketNo. 2D99-2870

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 771 So. 2d 1266 (Cannady 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

Cannady v. State, 771 So. 2d 1266, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 14874, 2000 WL 1700191 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge.

The appellant challenges an order revoking community control and an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. The record in this case supports the trial court’s finding that the appellant’s violations were willful and substantial. We therefore affirm the revocation. Further, while appeal proceedings are pending in an appellate court, a trial court is without jurisdiction to consider the merits of a motion for postconviction relief made pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Libby v. State, 520 So.2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We therefore affirm the denial of the motion for postcon-viction relief, without prejudice to the appellant again filing the motion after this appeal has become final.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

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

THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge.

The appellant challenges an order revoking community control and an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. The record in this case supports the trial court’s finding that the appellant’s violations were willful and substantial. We therefore affirm the revocation. Further, while appeal proceedings are pending in an appellate court, a trial court is without jurisdiction to consider the merits of a motion for postconviction relief made pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Libby v. State, 520 So.2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We therefore affirm the denial of the motion for postcon-viction relief, without prejudice to the appellant again filing the motion after this appeal has become final.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

771 So. 2d 1266, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 14874, 2000 WL 1700191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cannady-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack