Harpham v. State, 415 So. 2d 863

ORFINGER, Judge.

The trial court was correct in holding that it has no jurisdiction to ‍‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‍consider a motion for collateral relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 while an appeal from appellant‘s conviction is pending in this court. Fick v. State, 388 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 5th ‍‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‍DCA 1980).

Procedurally, a request for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence is not properly brought under Rule 3.850. The correct way to seek relief on this ground ‍‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‍is by a petition for writ of error coram nobis containing the necessary allegations. See Smith v. State, 400 So.2d 956 (Fla. 1981); Hallman v. State, 371 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1979).

The order of ‍‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‍the trial court denying petitioner‘s Rule 3.850 motion is AFFIRMED.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr. and COWART, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Harpham v. State

Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida

Date Published: Jun 23, 1982

Citations: 415 So. 2d 863; 82-686

Docket Number: 82-686

Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.