JASON C. TUREM
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court has jurisdiction to address the merits of a new postconviction relief motion even when an appeal of a previously denied motion remains pending, provided the new motion raises grounds unrelated to those in the prior motion.
[1] A trial court retains jurisdiction to address the merits of a new postconviction relief motion raising grounds unrelated to those in a previously denied motion, notwithst…
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 intelligenceTurem filed a third motion for postconviction relief in August 2018. The trial court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction because an appeal o…
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 3.850 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
JASON C. TUREM,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D18-3052
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed November 30, 2018
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County, Richard A. Howard, Judge.
Jason C. Turem, Live Oak, pro se.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The lower court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to address the merits of Appellant’s third motion seeking postconviction relief, filed in August 2018, because an appeal of a previously denied motion remains pending. Because the new motion raises three grounds that are unrelated to those presented in the prior motion, the lower court erred in its conclusion. See Siskos v. State, 163 So. 3d 739, 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).
2
Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause with directions that the lower court address the merits of Appellant’s August 2018 motion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ORFINGER, TORPY and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.