JUAN JOSE SAPEG
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 may dismiss a successive Rule 3.850 motion as procedurally barred without considering the merits when a related appeal is pending.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of a successive Rule 3.850 motion while a related appeal is pending, but may dismiss the motion as procedurally ba…
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“a trial court is without jurisdiction to consider the merits of a successive motion while a related appeal is pending but may 'determine that the motion is procedurally barred and may dismiss the motion as successive or untimely'”
Court's citation to Jackman v. State, 88 So. 3d 325, 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
Juan Jose Sapeg filed a successive motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 in the Circuit Court for Osceola County while a related appea…
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 For Post-Conviction Relief 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
Case No. 5D20-1104 JUAN JOSE SAPEG, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed July 21, 2020 3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Osceola County, Wayne C. Wooten, Judge. Juan Jose Sapeg, Sanford, pro se. No Appearance for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Jackman v. State, 88 So. 3d 325, 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (concluding that a trial court is without jurisdiction to consider the merits of a successive motion while a related appeal is pending but may “determine that the motion is procedurally barred and may dismiss the motion as successive or untimely”). EISNAUGLE, GROSSHANS, and TRAVER, JJ., concur.