From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harpham v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Jun 23, 1982
415 So. 2d 863 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Opinion

No. 82-686.

June 23, 1982.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Orange County, Lon S. Cornelius, Jr., J.

Charles A. Tabscott, Orlando, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.


The trial court was correct in holding that it has no jurisdiction to consider a motion for collateral relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 while an appeal from appellant's conviction is pending in this court. Fick v. State, 388 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

Procedurally, a request for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence is not properly brought under Rule 3.850. The correct way to seek relief on this ground is by a petition for writ of error coram nobis containing the necessary allegations. See Smith v. State, 400 So.2d 956 (Fla. 1981); Hallman v. State, 371 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1979).

The order of the trial court denying petitioner's Rule 3.850 motion is AFFIRMED.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr. and COWART, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Harpham v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Jun 23, 1982
415 So. 2d 863 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
Case details for

Harpham v. State

Case Details

Full title:DAVID M. HARPHAM, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Jun 23, 1982

Citations

415 So. 2d 863 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Citing Cases

Slater v. State

The stated basis for denial was the pendency of a direct appeal which precludes simultaneous collateral…

Marshall v. State

Therefore, the trial court correctly ruled that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Harpham v.…