Walters v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Walters v. State

114 So. 3d 205, 2012 WL 4839001, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 17763

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 12, 2012

DocketNo. 5D12-2354

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 114 So. 3d 205 (Walters 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

Walters v. State, 114 So. 3d 205, 2012 WL 4839001, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 17763 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Travis Walters, appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Walters also has a direct appeal of his judgment and sentence pending in this court. The issue we must resolve is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the motion. Rule 3.800(a) expressly prohibits the filing of a motion during the pendency of a direct appeal. Therefore, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion because the motion was unauthorized. See Smith v. State, 82 So.3d 1185, 1186 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). Accordingly, we vacate the order of the trial court and remand this case with directions to dismiss Walters’ motion for lack of jurisdiction. See Daniels v. State, 712 So.2d 765 (Fla.1998); St. Lawrence v. State, 773 So.2d 1291 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

Additionally, because we find Walters’ motion was prematurely filed, he may refile his Rule 3.800(a) motion after resolution of his direct appeal. Id.

VACATED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

PALMER, EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Travis Walters, appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Walters also has a direct appeal of his judgment and sentence pending in this court. The issue we must resolve is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the motion. Rule 3.800(a) expressly prohibits the filing of a motion during the pendency of a direct appeal. Therefore, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion because the motion was unauthorized. See Smith v. State, 82 So.3d 1185, 1186 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). Accordingly, we vacate the order of the trial court and remand this case with directions to dismiss Walters’ motion for lack of jurisdiction. See Daniels v. State, 712 So.2d 765 (Fla.1998); St. Lawrence v. State, 773 So.2d 1291 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

Additionally, because we find Walters’ motion was prematurely filed, he may refile his Rule 3.800(a) motion after resolution of his direct appeal. Id.

VACATED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

PALMER, EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 So. 3d 205, 2012 WL 4839001, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 17763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walters-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack