Humphrey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Humphrey v. State

679 So. 2d 1254, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 9468, 1996 WL 517717

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 13, 1996

DocketNo. 96-02179

StatusPublished

This text of 679 So. 2d 1254 (Humphrey 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

Humphrey v. State, 679 So. 2d 1254, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 9468, 1996 WL 517717 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Mario S. Humphrey, challenges the trial court’s denial on the merits of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Since the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear Humphrey’s motion, we reverse.

A trial court has jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence at any time; however, during the pendency of a plenary appeal of a judgment and sentence, this jurisdiction is limited to the correction of clerical errors. Easterling v. State, 596 So.2d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Because Humphrey’s motion was filed while his appeal was pending in this court and did not seek correction of a clerical error, the trial court was without jurisdiction to determine Humphrey’s motion on the merits and should have dismissed it. See First v. State, 677 So.2d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to enter an order dismissing Humphrey’s motion without prejudice to his renewing his claim, if necessary, after the conclusion of his appeal.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Mario S. Humphrey, challenges the trial court’s denial on the merits of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Since the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear Humphrey’s motion, we reverse.

A trial court has jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence at any time; however, during the pendency of a plenary appeal of a judgment and sentence, this jurisdiction is limited to the correction of clerical errors. Easterling v. State, 596 So.2d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Because Humphrey’s motion was filed while his appeal was pending in this court and did not seek correction of a clerical error, the trial court was without jurisdiction to determine Humphrey’s motion on the merits and should have dismissed it. See First v. State, 677 So.2d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to enter an order dismissing Humphrey’s motion without prejudice to his renewing his claim, if necessary, after the conclusion of his appeal.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

679 So. 2d 1254, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 9468, 1996 WL 517717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/humphrey-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack