STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
HELENE POWELL, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appealed from an order granting a Rule 3.850 motion to vacate a first-degree murder conviction and ordering a new trial. The appellate court reversed, holding that the judge ruling on the motion to vacate lacked jurisdiction to grant a new trial after appeal was taken, and improperly reviewed both the appellate court's prior sufficiency-of-evidence ruling and another judge's trial decisions.
The appellate court held that the judge ruling on the motion to vacate lacked jurisdiction to grant a new trial because that jurisdiction was lost when the appeal was taken and never regained. The court also held that the judge erred in reviewing the appellate court's prior sufficiency-of-evidence determination and in reviewing another circuit judge's trial rulings in an appellate fashion.
[1] A trial court loses jurisdiction to grant a new trial after an appeal has been taken and jurisdiction has not been regained.
[2] A judge ruling on a motion to vacate a judgment cannot review a prior appellate decision on the sufficiency of the evidence.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial court has authority to determine the weight of the evidence while the question of sufficiency of the evidence is an appropriate conclusion of the appellate tribunal”
Establishes the division of authority between trial and appellate courts regarding weight versus sufficiency of evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHelene Powell was tried and convicted of first-degree murder. During trial, she moved for judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence, which …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jurisdiction After Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order granting relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Appellee was tried and found guilty of first degree murder. During trial she properly moved for a judgment of acquittal based upon the alleged insufficiency of the evidence. She moved for a new trial after she was found guilty. Both of these were denied, so she appealed the denials. She lost the appeal. See 414 So. 2d 1095.
After losing her appeal she filed a motion to vacate the judgment under Rule 3.850 and said she would not have been convicted if the original trial judge, who was not the one hearing the motion to vacate, had not been confused about the law relating to her case. The judge hearing the motion took testimony, including that of the trial judge, considered other evidence and ordered a new trial. He said the trial judge was under the impression that the decision in Marasa v. State, 394 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), prevented him from entering a judgment of acquittal even though he obviously felt that the weight of the evidence dictated such an order. This court is of the opinion that Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (1981), sets forth clearly that the trial court has authority to determine the weight of the evidence while the question of sufficiency of the evidence is an appropriate conclusion of the appellate tribunal.
The judge who ruled on the motion to vacate was in error because he had no jurisdiction to grant a new trial — neither did the trial judge. That jurisdiction was lost after the appeal was taken and never regained. He was also in error when he presumed to review a decision of this court which had passed on the sufficiency of the evidence. As to the ability of judges, trial or appellate, to pass on the weight or sufficiency of evidence see Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (1981), aff'd, Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982). Finally, he was in error when he presumed to rule upon, in an appellate fashion, the prior ruling of another circuit judge. Cf. Groover v. Walker, 88 So. 2d 312 (Fla.1956); Marine Midland Bank Central v. Cote, 384 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
The order appealed is reversed.
REVERSED.
COWART, J., concurs specially with opinion.
SHARP, J., dissents without opinion.
COWART, Judge,
concurring specially.
I completely concur in the court’s decision. However, I feel it necessary to point out that the trial judge below misconstrues Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla.1981), aff'd, Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982). On a motion for a judgment of acquittal during a jury trial the trial judge considers only the legal sufficiency of the evidence; that is, whether there is some competent evidence to support every ultimate fact necessary to establish every essential constituent element of the offense. This includes direct evidence and circumstantial evidence from which the jury may reasonably infer an essential ultimate fact. The trial judge does not weigh the evidence. See Davis v. State, 425 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Cunningham v. State, 385 So. 2d 721, 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).1 See also Dunn v. State, 454 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.600(a)(2) the trial judge does have some discretion to consider the weight of the evidence in ruling on a motion for a new trial. However, the trial court in this case exercised that discretion and denied the motion for a new trial.
. The fact that a trial court states on the record that it would have acquitted the defendant if it had been sitting as a juror is of no consequence in a motion for judgment of acquittal. See Rodriguez v. State, 436 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tsavaris v. NCNB Nat'l Bank OF Fla. & Neofytos Theodore Tsangaris, 497 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…(Fla.1986); Burr v. State, 466 So. 2d 1051, 1053 (Fla.1985); W.S.L. v. State, 470 So. 2d 828, 829 (Fla.2d DCA 1985); Brate v. State, 469 So. 2d 790, 795 (Fla.2d DCA 1985); Robinson v. State, 462 So. 2d 471, 476 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); State v. Powell, 460 So. 2d 421, 423 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Bradford v. State, 460 So. 2d 926, 930 (Fla.2d DCA 1984); Brown v. State, 454 So. 2d 596, 599 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Rodriguez v. State, 436 So. 2d 219, 220 (Fla.3d DCA 1983); McIlwain v. State, 402 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 5th DCA…
-
Wright v. Wright, 559 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…Walker, 88 So. 2d 312 (Fla.1956); Happ v. Lockett, 543 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Globe Aero Ltd., Inc. v. Air and General Finance Ltd., 537 [*1195] So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), review dismissed, 542 So. 2d 1332 (Fla.1989); State v. Powell, 460 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), dismissed, 466 So. 2d 218 (Fla.1985); Hood v. State, 415 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); and Boeing Company v. Merchant, 397 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So. 2d 468 (Fla.1982). No such special circumstances…
-
Cuffy v. Sec'y of Dep't of Corr. (S.D. Fla. 2021)…lity.”); see also Nilio v State, 143 So. 3d 424, 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (holding that a “motion to disqualify” filed “at a time when the trial court’s jurisdiction had not been invoked for any other purpose” was “void ab initio.”); State v. Powell, 460 So. 2d 421, 422 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (“The judge who ruled on the motion to vacate was in error because he had no jurisdiction to grant a new trial—neither did the trial judge. That jurisdiction was lost after the appeal was taken and never regained.”); Shepar…
Authorities Cited
- Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1982)
- Delbert Lee Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981)
- Groover v. Walker, 88 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1956)
- Dunn v. State, 454 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Marasa v. State, 394 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Cunningham v. State, 385 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Marine Midland Bank Cent. v. Cote, 384 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Rodriguez v. State, 436 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Davis v. State, 425 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Helene Powell v. State, 414 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)