Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Grizzell v. State

Grizzell v. State

187 So. 2d 342, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5456
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 7, 1966·No. No. H-416·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

PER CURIAM.

Grizzell filed a motion to vacate-in the lower court pursuant to Criminal-Procedure Rule 1, Ch. 924, F.S.A. Appendix. Upon consideration of the Rule-1 motion the lower court entered its order-reciting that it could not entertain said', motion because a direct appeal from Griz-zell’s criminal conviction was presently-pending before the District Court of Appeal, First District, which order in effect denied the Rule 1 motion. From this-order Grizzell then appealed to this Court,, filed a brief and the State then filed', a motion to quash or dismiss the appeal..

[343]*343We are of the opinion that the lower court was correct in denying the Rule 1 motion because the direct appeal which is now pending in this court places all jurisdiction in this court until the determination of the appeal.

The motion to dismiss is hereby granted.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., CARROLL, DONALD K., and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.

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

Grizzell v. State, 187 So. 2d 342, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5456 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

187 So. 2d 342 (Grizzell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Daniels v. State
698 So. 2d 555 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
State v. Meneses
392 So. 2d 905 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1981)
Hurst v. State
379 So. 2d 434 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Meneses v. State
372 So. 2d 1152 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
Brooks v. State
209 So. 2d 271 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)
Barton v. State
193 So. 2d 627 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)