Smith v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Per curiam
Ben Arthur Smith appeals from an order striking his Rule 3.800 motion for lack of jurisdiction. We reverse.
As the State properly concedes, the pen-dency of Smith’s appeal from denial of an earlier filed Rule 3.850 motion did not deprive the court below of jurisdiction to consider the instant 3.800 motion which raised unrelated grounds. See Fla.R.Crim. P. 3.800; McFarland v. State, 808 So.2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Hines v. State, 714 So.2d 605, 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Montague v. State, 710 So.2d 228, 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Bates v. State, 704 So.2d 562, 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
Accordingly,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bates v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1997
- Montague v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1998
- McFarland v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2002
- Hines v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1998
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bryant v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2012
- Dugan v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2004