King v. State, 1D01-1421.
| Decision Date | 24 September 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D01-1421.,1D01-1421. |
| Citation | 795 So.2d 1086 |
| Parties | Allen KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Appellant, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Robert L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
ORDER DISCHARGING SHOW CAUSE
The appellant challenges an order by which the trial court summarily denied all but one of the claims presented in the appellant's Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. As to the remaining claim, which related to the appellant's sentence, the trial court granted relief and, in conjunction therewith, imposed a new sentence. This case was initially set up in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2), which provides a streamlined procedure for appeals of orders that grant or deny postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, but we ordered the parties to show cause why the appeal should not be redesignated as a direct appeal following a resentencing and why jurisdiction should not be relinquished to the trial court for appointment of counsel. Although both parties suggested that the appellant's challenge to the resentencing could be redesignated and assigned a new case number, with the summary denial issues proceeding separately under the rule 9.140(b)(2) procedure, we have determined that the better course in these circumstances is to allow all of the appellant's challenges to remain in one case and to redesignate the appeal as a direct appeal from the new sentence.
We accordingly discharge the show cause order and redesignate this appeal as a direct appeal from the amended sentence filed July 11, 2000. Any challenges relating to the trial court's ruling on the rule 3.850 motion may be presented in this appeal. Jurisdiction is relinquished to the trial court for 30 days for appointment of counsel to represent the appellant in this appeal.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garrett v. Tucker
...petitioner to show cause why the appeal should not be redesignated as a direct appeal from the resentencing, citing King v. State, 795 So.2d 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). (Ex. U). Petitioner responded, agreeing that the appeal should be redesignated as a direct appeal, "conced[ing] to such rede......
-
Slocum v. State, 1D11–6585.
...on Slocum's motion for postconviction relief, but also the July 27, 2011, partial denial of postconviction relief. See King v. State, 795 So.2d 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (concluding that “the better course” in appeals in this posture is to allow all of the appellant's challenges to remain in......
-
Fleming v. State
...The trial court is directed to consider whether Mr. Fleming may be entitled to appointment of counsel for the appeal. King v. State, 795 So.2d 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). PETITION WEBSTER, PADOVANO and HAWKES, JJ., concur. ...
-
Bines v. State
...motion. These latter notices of appeal were redesignated by this Court as a direct appeal from the resentencing. See King v. State, 795 So.2d 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). On this direct appeal, Appellant is entitled to Appellant was resentenced because he correctly alleged in his rule 3.800(a)......