ALGIE SCOTT, 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.
Scott appeals from the trial court's amended order denying his motion for postconviction relief, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order before the appellate mandate was issued. The court agrees and reverses, holding that a trial court cannot enter orders while an appeal is pending and the mandate has not yet issued.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the amended order until the mandate was issued on December 30, 2013. A trial court cannot enter orders while an appeal is pending without the appellate court's mandate.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to enter an order in a case after an appeal has been filed until the appellate court issues its mandate.
[2] A trial court must wait for the issuance of an appellate court's mandate before entering an order on remand.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 lacked jurisdiction to enter the amended order until December 30, 2013, the date the mandate was issued.”
Establishes the core holding that trial courts lack jurisdiction to enter orders before the appellate mandate is issued.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 2008, Scott was convicted of selling cocaine within 1,000 feet of a place of worship or convenience business and sentenced as a habitual offender. …
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 Issuance Of Mandate cases and more on FLexlaw
Algie Scott appeals from an amended order summarily denying ground one of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. On appeal, he argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order. We agree and reverse.
In 2008, Scott was convicted of selling cocaine within 1,000 feet of a place of worship or convenience business and was sentenced as a habitual offender. Scott unsuccessfully appealed that conviction.. Subsequently, Scott filed a rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, alleging in ground one that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State’s use of his prior felony petit theft conviction to support its request for a habitual offender sentence enhancement. The trial court summarily denied that motion and Scott appealed. In an opinion dated December 6, 2013, we reversed in part, remanding with instructions for the lower court to either attach portions of the record that conclusively refuted the claim made in ground one or conduct an evidentiary hearing on that claim. See Scott v. State, 128 So.3d 191, 192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). In what can only be described as a model of efficiency, the trial court, within a week of the issuance of our opinion, entered an amended order denying Scott’s claim, this time attaching portions of the record in support of the denial. Over two weeks later, on December 30, 2013, this Court issued the mandate in Scott’s case.
Scott once again appeals, raising two arguments. First, he argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the amended order before the December 30th issuance of the mandate. Second, he submits that the portions of the record attached by the trial court did not, in fact, conclusively refute ground one of his rule 3.850 motion.
Scott’s jurisdiction argument has merit. See Smith v. State, 997 So.2d 507 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (holding that trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter order before mandate issued). The trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the amended order until December 30, 2013, the date the mandate was issued. As reluctant as we are to punish efficiency, we must remand the case. Should the trial court decide to simply reissue the order, we will address Scott’s other argument at the appropriate time, assuming he chooses to appeal.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leatherwood v. State, 168 So. 3d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…ing, the State concedes that the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to enter the Order on Appeal because it was entered prior to the issuance of the mandate. II. Conclusion The State properly concedes that this case is governed by Scott v. State, 156 So. 3d 9 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014), and that the trial court, while acting efficiently in response to our December 3, 2014 opinion, was without jurisdiction to enter the Order on Appeal. We share with our sister court the same reluctance “to punish efficiency;” ho…
-
Montre D. Richardson v. State, 257 So. 3d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
-
Touchton-Williams v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2026)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 997 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
- Algie Scott v. State, 128 So. 3d 191 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)