Ramkhelawan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ramkhelawan v. State

137 So. 3d 524, 2014 WL 1301222, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 4789

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 2, 2014

DocketNo. 4D13-3711

StatusPublished

This text of 137 So. 3d 524 (Ramkhelawan 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

Ramkhelawan v. State, 137 So. 3d 524, 2014 WL 1301222, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 4789 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant filed a rule 3.850 motion, which was summarily denied for lack of a valid oath. On appeal, we found that Defendant was entitled to have leave to amend under Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007), and we reversed and remanded [525]*525four of the claims. See Ramkhalawan v. State, 50 So.3d 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).¹ A month after Defendant filed his amended motion on remand, he moved for leave to supplement the pending amended motion by adding a new claim. The trial court denied the motion for leave to supplement while the other four claims were still pending. Defendant now appeals the trial court’s denial of the motion for leave to supplement. Because the motion which Defendant sought to supplement is still pending resolution, we find that this is an appeal of a non-final order that is premature and unauthorized. See Leger v. State, 818 So.2d 697 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to Defendant’s appeal once the trial court enters a final order on the rule 3.850 motion.

Dismissed.

STEVENSON, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant filed a rule 3.850 motion, which was summarily denied for lack of a valid oath. On appeal, we found that Defendant was entitled to have leave to amend under Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007), and we reversed and remanded [525]*525four of the claims. See Ramkhalawan v. State, 50 So.3d 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).¹ A month after Defendant filed his amended motion on remand, he moved for leave to supplement the pending amended motion by adding a new claim. The trial court denied the motion for leave to supplement while the other four claims were still pending. Defendant now appeals the trial court’s denial of the motion for leave to supplement. Because the motion which Defendant sought to supplement is still pending resolution, we find that this is an appeal of a non-final order that is premature and unauthorized. See Leger v. State, 818 So.2d 697 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to Defendant’s appeal once the trial court enters a final order on the rule 3.850 motion.

Dismissed.

STEVENSON, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 So. 3d 524, 2014 WL 1301222, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 4789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramkhelawan-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack