CLEVELAND DARDEN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 appellate court quashed a trial court's order denying a Rule 3.850 motion because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on it after the defendant filed a notice of plenary appeal.
A trial court loses jurisdiction to rule on a Rule 3.850 motion once a defendant files a notice of plenary appeal from the judgment and sentence.
[1] A trial court is divested of jurisdiction to rule on a Rule 3.850 motion once a defendant files a notice of plenary appeal from the judgment and sentence.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDarden filed a Rule 3.850 motion raising multiple claims including involuntary guilty plea, illegal confession, Brady violation, and ineffective assis…
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 3.850 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
In this case, Darden filed a 3.850 motion alleging his guilty plea was involuntary, his confession was illegally obtained, his right against self-incrimination was violated, a Brady1 (discovery) violation, ineffective representation by trial counsel, and an illegal sentence. Before the trial judge rendered his denial, to which he attached a transcript of the sentencing and plea hearings, Darden filed a notice of appeal from his judgment and sentence with this court, which is presently pending.2 Darden then appealed .the trial judge’s denial of his 3.850 motion.
Because Darden took his plenary appeal before the trial judge denied his 3.850 motion, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to act on the 3.850 motion. See Alexander v. State, 600 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Harpham v. State, 415 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Fick v. State, 388 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Accordingly, the ruling sought to be appealed in this case is a nullity. We quash the trial court’s order on Darden’s 3.850 motion, but note that Darden may appeal a later ruling after disposition of his plenary appeal.
QUASH ORDER; REMAND.
PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).
. Case No. 92-981.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hall v. State, 697 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…ns, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the motion. It is a nullity, and, similarly, any ruling we would make affirming or denying would be a nullity. See Johnson v. State, 646 So. 2d [*238] 307 (Fla. 6th DCA 1994); Darden v. State, 604 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Accordingly, we quash the order which is the subject of this appeal. QUASH ORDER SUMMARILY DENYING MOTION. COBB and ANTOON, JJ., concur.…
-
Johnson v. State, 646 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…direct appeal was still pending. Although appellant had represented in his 3.850motion that he had no direct appeal, in fact, his appeal was pending. Therefore, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter an order on the motion. Darden v. State, 604 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Young v. State, 585 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). The order denying the motion is therefore quashed. Johnson may appeal a later ruling following disposition of his plenary appeal. ORDER QUASHED. W. SHARP, PETERSON and GRI…
Authorities Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963)
- Fick v. State, 388 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- State v. Pagan, 600 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Harpham v. State, 415 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Hurst v. State, 415 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)