SCOTTIE D. LOWE, 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.
Appellant sought additional jail credit in two consolidated postconviction cases. The appellate court quashed the trial court's orders denying the motion because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on postconviction motions while direct appeals were pending.
A trial court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a rule 3.800(a) or 3.801 motion while a direct appeal is pending. The trial court should have dismissed rather than denied the motion, as a denial serves as a ruling on the merits that may preclude refiling of a successive motion.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a motion for additional jail credit while a direct appeal of the judgment and sentence in the underlying cases is pending.
[2] A trial court should dismiss a postconviction motion filed during the pendency of a direct appeal, rather than denying it, to avoid precluding the refiling of a successiv…
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“a party may not file a rule 3.800(a) [motion] during the pendency of a direct appeal”
Establishes the jurisdictional bar preventing postconviction motions while direct appeals are pending
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant filed pro se motions in two criminal cases (2007-CF-4046 and 2013-CF-1708) seeking additional jail credit. The trial court treated these mot…
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 Rule 3.800(b)(2) cases and more on FLexlaw
In these consolidated postconviction appeals, Appellant seeks review of the trial *1280court’s orders denying his pro se rule 3.800(a) motion seeking additional jail credit in case numbers 2007-CF-4046 and 2013-CF-1708. Although the trial court properly treated the motion as having been filed under rule 3.801, we quash the orders denying the motion because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion while the direct appeal of Appellant’s judgment - and sentence in these cases was pending in this court. See Day v. State, 770 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (affirming order dismissing rule 3.800(a) motion for lack of jurisdiction because, after the adoption of rule 3.800(b)(2), “a party may not file a rule 3.800(a) [motion] during the pendency of a direct appeal”); Burch v. State, 721 So.2d 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (quashing order denying postconviction motion that was entered while direct appeal was pending and explaining that “the trial court should have dismissed rather than denied [the] motion because a denial generally serves as a ruling on the merits precluding the refiling of a successive motion”). This disposition is without prejudice to Appellant seeking the additional jail credit in a rule 3.801 motion filed after the direct appeal is concluded or in a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion1 filed before the initial brief in the direct appeal, case number 1D13-4567.
ORDERS QUASHED.
BENTON, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mason v. State, 220 So. 3d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…ence has become final”); see also Cousnard v. State, 188 So. 3d 936, 936 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (reversing the trial court’s denial of a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error that sought an additional award of jail credit); Lowe v. State, 152 So. 3d 1279, 1280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (quashing the trial court’s orders on the appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion seeking additional jail credit, which it had treated as a rule 3.801 motion, without prejudice to the appellant filing a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion or…
Authorities Cited
- DAY v. State, 770 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Burch v. State, 721 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)