McClintock v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McClintock v. State

817 So. 2d 1082, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8057, 2002 WL 1271578

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 10, 2002

DocketNo. 1D01-4195

StatusPublished

This text of 817 So. 2d 1082 (McClintock 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

McClintock v. State, 817 So. 2d 1082, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8057, 2002 WL 1271578 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief in which he sought credit for time served in Alabama and challenged the accuracy of his guidelines scoresheet. Because the appellant had raised these same issues in an earlier motion, the denial of which was pending in this Court at the time the trial court ruled on the instant claims, the trial court was without jurisdiction to rule. Darling v. State, 799 So.2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); McKeever v. State, 808 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Under such circumstances, the trial court was required to dismiss the appellant’s motion for lack of jurisdiction. See id.

We accordingly reverse the order denying relief and remand for the trial court to dismiss the appellant’s motion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

KAHN, WEBSTER, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief in which he sought credit for time served in Alabama and challenged the accuracy of his guidelines scoresheet. Because the appellant had raised these same issues in an earlier motion, the denial of which was pending in this Court at the time the trial court ruled on the instant claims, the trial court was without jurisdiction to rule. Darling v. State, 799 So.2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); McKeever v. State, 808 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Under such circumstances, the trial court was required to dismiss the appellant’s motion for lack of jurisdiction. See id.

We accordingly reverse the order denying relief and remand for the trial court to dismiss the appellant’s motion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

KAHN, WEBSTER, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

817 So. 2d 1082, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8057, 2002 WL 1271578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcclintock-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack