Darden v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Darden v. State

604 So. 2d 1256, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9326, 1992 WL 213109

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 4, 1992

DocketNo. 92-1063

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 604 So. 2d 1256 (Darden 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

Darden v. State, 604 So. 2d 1256, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9326, 1992 WL 213109 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

W. SHARP, Judge.

In this case, Darden filed a 3.850 motion alleging his guilty plea was involuntary, his confession was illegally obtained, his right against self-incrimination was violated, a Brady¹ (discovery) violation, ineffective representation by trial counsel, and an illegal sentence. Before the trial judge rendered his denial, to which he attached a [1257]*1257transcript of the sentencing and plea hearings, Darden filed a notice of appeal from his judgment and sentence with this court, which is presently pending.² Darden then appealed .the trial judge’s denial of his 3.850 motion.

Because Darden took his plenary appeal before the trial judge denied his 3.850 motion, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to act on the 3.850 motion. See Alexander v. State, 600 So.2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Harpham v. State, 415 So.2d 863 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Fick v. State, 388 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Accordingly, the ruling sought to be appealed in this case is a nullity. We quash the trial court’s order on Darden’s 3.850 motion, but note that Darden may appeal a later ruling after disposition of his plenary appeal.

QUASH ORDER; REMAND.

PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

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

W. SHARP, Judge.

In this case, Darden filed a 3.850 motion alleging his guilty plea was involuntary, his confession was illegally obtained, his right against self-incrimination was violated, a Brady¹ (discovery) violation, ineffective representation by trial counsel, and an illegal sentence. Before the trial judge rendered his denial, to which he attached a [1257]*1257transcript of the sentencing and plea hearings, Darden filed a notice of appeal from his judgment and sentence with this court, which is presently pending.² Darden then appealed .the trial judge’s denial of his 3.850 motion.

Because Darden took his plenary appeal before the trial judge denied his 3.850 motion, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to act on the 3.850 motion. See Alexander v. State, 600 So.2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Harpham v. State, 415 So.2d 863 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Fick v. State, 388 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Accordingly, the ruling sought to be appealed in this case is a nullity. We quash the trial court’s order on Darden’s 3.850 motion, but note that Darden may appeal a later ruling after disposition of his plenary appeal.

QUASH ORDER; REMAND.

PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

604 So. 2d 1256, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9326, 1992 WL 213109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darden-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

W. SHARP, Judge.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack