From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. Twentieth Jud. Cir. Ct.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jul 23, 1986
491 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

Summary

holding that a trial court is without jurisdiction to rule on a 3.850 motion while a prior pending postconviction motion is on appeal, citing Lee,Wells, and Gobie

Summary of this case from Bryant v. State

Opinion

No. 86-1699.

July 23, 1986.

John H. Davis, Jr., pro se.


John Davis petitions this court for a writ of mandamus compelling the circuit court to rule on his pending motion for rehearing.

In December 1985, Davis filed a motion for post-conviction relief, which the trial court denied January 9, 1986. Davis then moved for rehearing within the fifteen-day limit prescribed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court apparently has taken no further action.

Under appropriate circumstances a prisoner may be entitled to a writ of mandamus if a trial court refuses to rule on a pending motion for post-conviction relief or unreasonably delays the resolution of such a motion. See, e.g., Francois v. Klein, 431 So.2d 165 (Fla. 1983); McBride v. State, 443 So.2d 416 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). However, we decline to grant Davis' petition because at the time the motion in question was filed Davis was in the process of appealing the denial of another series of post-conviction motions. The trial court's ruling in that case was not affirmed until March 7, 1986. Davis v. State, 485 So.2d 490 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Thus, the trial court was without jurisdiction to entertain the subsequent motion and any order passing on that motion would be a nullity. Lee v. State, 392 So.2d 913 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Gobie v. State, 188 So.2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Wells v. State, 362 So.2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). An order ruling on the motion for rehearing similarly would have been unauthorized. Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court breached any lawful duty by failing to dispose of the latter motion.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Davis v. Twentieth Jud. Cir. Ct.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jul 23, 1986
491 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

holding that a trial court is without jurisdiction to rule on a 3.850 motion while a prior pending postconviction motion is on appeal, citing Lee,Wells, and Gobie

Summary of this case from Bryant v. State
Case details for

Davis v. Twentieth Jud. Cir. Ct.

Case Details

Full title:JOHN H. DAVIS, JR., PETITIONER, v. TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, LEE…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Jul 23, 1986

Citations

491 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

Citing Cases

Bryant v. State

In an era when a time limit for filing postconviction motions did not exist, this rule may occasionally have…

Mason v. Cir. Ct., Fifth Judicial

Mandamus lies to compel a trial court to rule on a motion or petition after a reasonable time. Matthews v.…