Hull v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hull v. State

629 So. 2d 1113, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 172, 1994 WL 11634

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 20, 1994

DocketNo. 93-2349

StatusPublished

This text of 629 So. 2d 1113 (Hull 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

Hull v. State, 629 So. 2d 1113, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 172, 1994 WL 11634 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

ALLEN, Judge.

The appellant challenges the lower court’s dismissal of a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. The court dismissed this motion because the appellant had a pending appeal challenging the court’s denial of a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.230 motion to disqualify the judge assigned to the case. Although a pending appeal as to the underlying conviction and sentence would preclude the lower court’s jurisdiction to consider a rule 3.850 motion, see Bryan v. State, 470 So.2d 864 (Fla. 2d DCA1985), the appeal of a motion to disqualify does not have such absolute pre-clusive effect. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(f). The lower court thus should have retained jurisdiction, and should not have dismissed the appellant’s rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief.

The appealed order is reversed, and the cause remanded.

ERVIN and SMITH, JJ., concur.

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

ALLEN, Judge.

The appellant challenges the lower court’s dismissal of a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. The court dismissed this motion because the appellant had a pending appeal challenging the court’s denial of a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.230 motion to disqualify the judge assigned to the case. Although a pending appeal as to the underlying conviction and sentence would preclude the lower court’s jurisdiction to consider a rule 3.850 motion, see Bryan v. State, 470 So.2d 864 (Fla. 2d DCA1985), the appeal of a motion to disqualify does not have such absolute pre-clusive effect. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(f). The lower court thus should have retained jurisdiction, and should not have dismissed the appellant’s rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief.

The appealed order is reversed, and the cause remanded.

ERVIN and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

629 So. 2d 1113, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 172, 1994 WL 11634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hull-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack