Montre D. Richardson v. State of Florida

257 So. 3d 605
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 18, 2018
Docket17-2156
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 257 So. 3d 605 (Montre D. Richardson v. State of Florida) 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
Montre D. Richardson v. State of Florida, 257 So. 3d 605 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

No. 1D17-2156 _____________________________

MONTRE D. RICHARDSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Russell L. Healey, Judge.

October 18, 2018

PER CURIAM.

We are constrained to reverse on procedural grounds the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In a previous appeal, Appellant successfully argued that the trial court must attach to its order record excerpts conclusively refuting Appellant’s claims. See Richardson v. State, 215 So. 3d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). Our opinion issued on April 28, 2017. Very promptly, on May 3, 2017, the trial court complied with our decision and re-entered the order denying Appellant’s rule 3.850 motion, this time properly attaching records to support the denial. However, our mandate in the previous postconviction appeal did not issue until May 24, 2017. An appellate court’s mandate is the procedural vehicle by which jurisdiction transfers back to the trial court. Mathis v. State, 963 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Until issuance of our mandate, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter an order complying with our directions. Accordingly, while we applaud the trial court’s efficient compliance with our decision, and are loathe to “punish efficiency,” we must reverse the order because it was entered when the trial court did not have jurisdiction. See Leatherwood v. State, 168 So. 3d 328, 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (noting the court’s reluctance to punish efficiency); Scott v. State, 156 So. 3d 9, 10 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). Under these circumstances, we reverse and remand for re-entry of the order with record attachments—after our mandate has issued. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.340(a) (defining “mandate” and setting forth procedures).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and KELSEY and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

Montre D. Richardson, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jason W. Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

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

Related

Avery Cuff v. State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2025
Marcia Stivelman v. Jacques C. Stivelman
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2025

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
257 So. 3d 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montre-d-richardson-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2018.