ANTHONY MURPHY
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 lacks jurisdiction to rule on a postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 when the claims in the motion are clearly related to claims in a pending appeal before the appellate court.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 when the claims raised in the motion are clearly relate…
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“there is no concurrent jurisdiction for the lower court to rule if the claims in a pending appeal and in a motion before the postconviction court are 'clearly related.'”
Court's statement of the applicable jurisdictional rule from Siskos v. State
Anthony Murphy filed a postconviction motion alleging newly discovered evidence that the victim had recanted or expressed serious misgivings about ide…
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 Newly Discovered Evidence 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
ANTHONY MURPHY,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D20-124
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed April 17, 2020
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Renee A. Roche, Judge.
Anthony Murphy, Jasper, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Murphy appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging newly discovered evidence. Although we agree with the postconviction court that Murphy’s current motion lacked merit, we are compelled to reverse and remand for entry of an amended order because the postconviction court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the subject motion. The postconviction court entertained and denied the subject motion during the pendency of a separate appeal by Murphy to this Court concerning an earlier-filed rule
2 3.850 motion. Generally, in postconviction cases, the entry of an order on one postconviction motion “will not deprive trial courts of jurisdiction” to rule on another postconviction motion “so long as the issues raised in the two cases are unrelated.” Bates v. State, 704 So. 2d 562, 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). However, this Court has previously held that there is no concurrent jurisdiction for the lower court to rule if the claims in a pending appeal and in a motion before the postconviction court are “clearly related.” Siskos v. State, 163 So. 3d 739, 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). Here, both motions allege that the victim of the crimes for which Murphy was convicted had either recanted or expressed serious misgivings about identifying Murphy as the perpetrator. Because the subject motion was so closely related to the already pending appeal, the postconviction court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the subject motion. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
EDWARDS, HARRIS and SASSO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bates v. State, 704 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Siskos v. State, 163 So. 3d 739 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)