C.R., THE MOTHER, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, 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.
Trial court retains concurrent jurisdiction to rule on a motion for appointment of counsel for a child despite pending appellate review of other orders in the case.
A trial court retains concurrent jurisdiction to rule on a motion for appointment of counsel for a child even when other orders in the case are pending appellate review, provided the trial court does not alter or act in a manner that frustrates the appellate court's efforts.
[1] A trial court retains concurrent jurisdiction to rule on collateral motions not affecting the subject matter of pending appeals, even when other orders in the case are un…
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 intelligence“The lower court is prohibited only from altering the order or acting in any manner with respect to its appealed order as might frustrate the efforts of the appellate court or render moot its labors.”
Explaining the scope of trial court jurisdiction when appeals are pending.
C.R., the mother, filed a motion for appointment of an attorney for the child in a Department of Children and Families case. The trial court declined …
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 During Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
The mother, C.R., petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus on her Motion for the Appointment of an Attorney for the Child in this case. The trial court declined to rule on the motion on the ground that several orders in the case are pending review before this court.
Upon consideration of the nature of the motion and the substance of the orders under review, we find the trial court retains concurrent jurisdiction with this court to rule upon the motion. See J.B.P.F. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 869 So.2d 1289, 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (citing Bradenton Group, Inc. v. Dep’t of Legal Affairs, 701 So.2d 1170, 1180 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), approved in part and quashed in part, 727 So.2d 199 (Fla.1998) (“The lower court is prohibited only from altering the order or acting in any manner with respect to its appealed order as might frustrate the efforts of the appellate court or render moot its labors.”)); Bailey v. Bailey, 392 So.2d 49, 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (“Whether the trial court lacks jurisdiction depends not simply on the fact that an appeal in the case has been taken and is pending, but rather on the nature of the action being taken by the trial court in relation to the subject matter of the pending appeal.”).
Petition granted; writ withheld.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…(46) Johnson v. State, 56 So. 3d 779 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (petition for writ of prohibition denied). (47) Johnson v. State, 61 So. 3d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (affirming denial of rule 3,800 motion to correct illegal sentence). (48) Johnson v. State, 201 So. 3d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (vacating trial Court’s order as • the trial court lacked jurisdiction at the time the order was entered).…
Authorities Cited
- Bailey v. Bailey, 392 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Dep't OF Legal Affairs v. Bradenton Grp., Inc., 727 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 1998)
- Bradenton Grp., Inc. v. Dep't of Legal Affairs, 701 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- J.B.P.F. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 869 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)