712 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1998)

From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Daniels v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Jun 4, 1998

712 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1998)

Summary

holding that during the pendency of a direct appeal, a trial court is without jurisdiction to rule on a postconviction motion

Summary of this case from Vandornick v. State

See 11 Summaries

Opinion

No. 91537

June 4, 1998

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Direct Conflict of Decisions First District — Case No. 97-900 (Calhoun County).

Billy Wayne Daniels, Bonifay, Petitioner, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and James W. Rogers, Bureau Chief, Criminal Appeals, Tallahassee, for Respondent

OVERTON, Justice.

We have for review Daniels v. State, 698 So.2d 555 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), which expressly and directly conflicts with State v. Meneses, 392 So.2d 905 (Fla. 1981), and Hall v. State, 697 So.2d 237 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. This case concerns the jurisdiction of the trial and appellate courts to hear and review a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion on the merits during the pendency of a direct appeal. We find that neither the trial court nor the First District Court of Appeal had jurisdiction over this cause and we quash the decision of the district court.

Billy Wayne Daniels appealed an order of the trial court revoking his community control. During the pendency of the direct appeal, Daniels filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to rule 3.850. The rule 3.850 motion was denied on the merits by the trial court and Daniels appealed. The First District Court of Appeal properly found that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the rule 3.850 motion during the pendency of the direct appeal. However, rather than vacate the trial court's order, the district court proceeded to consider the case and affirmed the trial court's order on the merits.

We accepted jurisdiction because the decision of the First District Court expressly and directly conflicts with the decisions in Meneses and Hall. Those cases make it clear that during the pendency of a defendant's direct appeal, the trial court is without jurisdiction to rule on a motion for postconviction relief. Consistent with Meneses and Hall, we hold that a ruling on the merits of the postconviction motion rendered by the trial court is a nullity, and, consequently, a decision by the appellate court that affirms or reverses the trial court's ruling is also a nullity.

Accordingly, we quash the decision of the First District Court in this case and remand this cause with directions that the trial court's order on the rule 3.850 motion be vacated. Additionally, because we find that Daniels' post-conviction motion was prematurely filed, Daniels may refile the motion without prejudice following an adverse decision in his direct appeal and the motion will not be subject to the restriction against successive motions under rule 3.850(f).

It is so ordered.

KOGAN, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, WELLS, ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

Summaries of

Daniels v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Jun 4, 1998

712 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1998)

holding that during the pendency of a direct appeal, a trial court is without jurisdiction to rule on a postconviction motion

Summary of this case from Vandornick v. State

holding that during the pendency of a direct appeal, a trial court is without jurisdiction to rule on a postconviction motion

Summary of this case from Vandornick v. State

holding that since district court of appeal properly found that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on a 3.850 motion during the pendency of a direct appeal, the district court of appeal should have vacated the order rather than affirming on the merits

Summary of this case from Hankerson v. State

holding that during pendency of defendant's direct appeal trial court is without jurisdiction to rule on motion for post-conviction relief

Summary of this case from May v. State

holding that where a defendant's first motion was both filed and denied while his conviction was on appeal, his second motion is not procedurally barred

Summary of this case from Bailey v. State

holding that during pendency of defendant's direct appeal trial court is without jurisdiction to rule on motion for postconviction relief

Summary of this case from Ortiz v. State

reiterating that "during the pendency of a defendant's direct appeal, the trial court is without jurisdiction to rule on a motion for postconviction relief"

Summary of this case from Tompkins v. State

In Daniels, the supreme court held that an order entered without jurisdiction is a nullity, and consequently, a decision by the appellate court that affirms or reverses the trial court's order is also a nullity.

Summary of this case from Meintzer v. State

In Daniels, the supreme court ruled that a trial court is without jurisdiction to rule on a post-conviction motion while an appellant's direct appeal is pending.

Summary of this case from Merrill v. State

In Daniels, the supreme court held that a ruling on the merits of a rule 3.850 motion when a direct appeal is pending is a nullity and therefore the appellate court should dismiss an appeal of such an order, rather than affirming.

Summary of this case from Smith v. State

quashing district court opinion affirming and remanding for vacation of trial court's order of denial, where postconviction motion was prematurely filed while direct appeal was still pending

Summary of this case from Burch v. State

Daniels v. State

Summary

Opinion

Daniels v. State

Daniels v. State

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

Daniels v. State

Summary

Opinion

Daniels v. State

Daniels v. State

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations