Douglas v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Douglas v. State

65 So. 3d 116, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 10315, 2011 WL 2578565

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 30, 2011

DocketNo. 1D11-1146

StatusPublished

This text of 65 So. 3d 116 (Douglas 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

Douglas v. State, 65 So. 3d 116, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 10315, 2011 WL 2578565 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The appellant’s direct ap[117]*117peal is currently pending, and thus, the trial court was without jurisdiction to rule on the motion to correct illegal sentence. 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 pendency of a direct appeal). “A prematurely filed motion for postconvietion relief should be dismissed by a trial court and may be refiled after the direct appeal is final.” Bunkley v. State, 800 So.2d 663, 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Thus, we reverse the denial of the appellant’s motion and remand for the trial court to dismiss the motion without prejudice to the appellant’s right to refile after his direct appeal is final.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

WOLF, DAVIS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The appellant’s direct ap[117]*117peal is currently pending, and thus, the trial court was without jurisdiction to rule on the motion to correct illegal sentence. 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 pendency of a direct appeal). “A prematurely filed motion for postconvietion relief should be dismissed by a trial court and may be refiled after the direct appeal is final.” Bunkley v. State, 800 So.2d 663, 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Thus, we reverse the denial of the appellant’s motion and remand for the trial court to dismiss the motion without prejudice to the appellant’s right to refile after his direct appeal is final.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

WOLF, DAVIS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 So. 3d 116, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 10315, 2011 WL 2578565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/douglas-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack