Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

209 So. 2d 271

Brooks v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1968-04-23

Relies on Blackman v. City of Gainesville · Birmingham v. Florida Real Estate Commission · Baker v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1968-04-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 2006

5 state decisions

3019681970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s motion to vacate judgment and sentence filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule One, Chapter 924, F.S.A., Appendix.

¶2A review of the record and briefs filed herein reveals that the appellant filed his motion to vacate at a time when there was pending a review of this court’s affirmance of his conviction on direct appeal, reported at 192 So.2d 96, cert. denied, Fla., 196 So.2d 920. The review proceedings pending consisted of a petition for writ of certiorari filed in the United States Supreme Court.

¶3In Grizzell v. State, 187 So.2d 342, we held that a motion to vacate judgment and sentence under Criminal Procedure Rule One will not be entertained during the pen-dency of a review of the same judgment by direct appeal. The instant case is postured like Grizzell, supra, except that here at the time the postconviction motion was filed there was pending a further review of the direct appeal via certiorari proceedings.

¶4In view of the pendency of the certiorari proceedings in the appellate courts at the time the Rule One motion was filed in the trial court, that tribunal was without jurisdiction to entertain the. motion; and, therefore, its order denying the motion to vacate was well founded.

¶5While the State .has not filed a motion to dismiss the instant appeal for want of jurisdiction, it is our opinion that we have no jurisdiction to consider this matter; and, hence, we enter our sua sponte order dismissing this cause on authority of Grizzell, supra.

WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
/209/so2d/271 · .json · Public domain