HUGH KUNSELMAN
v.
OFFICES OF GOVERNOR, AND 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.
The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's transfer of a prisoner's confusing pleading to the criminal court with jurisdiction, holding that the trial court did not reversibly err in interpreting the filing as a postconviction motion rather than a civil action.
A trial court does not reversibly err in interpreting a confusing prisoner pleading as a postconviction motion and transferring it to the court with jurisdiction over the criminal case.
Hugh Kunselman, a prisoner, filed a confusing pleading that did not state any proper cause of action—criminal or civil—and was a compilation of variou…
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 Presumption Of Correctness Of Trial Court Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
LONG, J.
Appellant, a prisoner, argues the trial court erred in interpreting his pleading as a postconviction motion and transferring it to the court with jurisdiction over Appellant’s criminal case. Appellant further argues his pleading was not a collateral criminal proceeding but was instead an attempt at a civil action to represent other prisoners. We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal because a nonfinal order transferring a postconviction motion to the proper jurisdiction “concern[s] venue.” Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(A); Myrick v. Inch, 303 So. 3d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). “In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error.” Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979). Appellant’s filing below was confusing and did not state any proper cause of action—criminal or civil. It was a compilation of various statements without any substance. We cannot say the trial court reversibly erred in its construction of the pleading, and so Appellant has not carried his burden on appeal.
AFFIRMED.
RAY and NORDBY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Hugh Kunselman, pro se, Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kristen J. Lonergan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellees.
2