Haines v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Haines v. State

805 So. 2d 972, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16409, 2001 WL 1471744

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 21, 2001

DocketNo. 2D00-4280

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 805 So. 2d 972 (Haines 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

Haines v. State, 805 So. 2d 972, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16409, 2001 WL 1471744 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s ruling denying Mr. Haines’s motion for postconvietion relief. We comment only to clarify that the amended order, which was filed after Mr. Haines filed his notice of appeal, was entered without jurisdiction and was therefore a nullity.

Mr. Haines sought to withdraw his 1998 plea, claiming that it was involuntarily entered. The trial court’s first order is supported by competent, substantial evidence. However, while Mr. Haines’s appeal was pending, the trial court entered an amended order elaborating on the reasons Mr. Haines’s motion was denied. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the amended order, and it was therefore a nullity. See, e.g., Allston v. State, 685 So.2d 1312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (filing of notice of appeal divests trial court of jurisdiction); Albertson’s Inc. v. Ferrell, 647 So.2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (holding that amended order which made more than clerical corrections was a nullity when it was entered after notice of appeal). Therefore, in affirming the order denying relief, we have not considered the additional findings set forth in the amended order.

We affirm.

BLUE, C.J., and GREEN and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s ruling denying Mr. Haines’s motion for postconvietion relief. We comment only to clarify that the amended order, which was filed after Mr. Haines filed his notice of appeal, was entered without jurisdiction and was therefore a nullity.

Mr. Haines sought to withdraw his 1998 plea, claiming that it was involuntarily entered. The trial court’s first order is supported by competent, substantial evidence. However, while Mr. Haines’s appeal was pending, the trial court entered an amended order elaborating on the reasons Mr. Haines’s motion was denied. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the amended order, and it was therefore a nullity. See, e.g., Allston v. State, 685 So.2d 1312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (filing of notice of appeal divests trial court of jurisdiction); Albertson’s Inc. v. Ferrell, 647 So.2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (holding that amended order which made more than clerical corrections was a nullity when it was entered after notice of appeal). Therefore, in affirming the order denying relief, we have not considered the additional findings set forth in the amended order.

We affirm.

BLUE, C.J., and GREEN and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

805 So. 2d 972, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16409, 2001 WL 1471744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haines-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack