KUNSELMAN v. OFFICES OF GOVERNOR (2022)

Appellant, a prisoner, argues the trial court erred in interpreting his pleading as a postconviction motion and transferring it to the court with jurisdiction over Appellant's criminal case. Appellant further argues his pleading was not a collateral criminal proceeding but was instead an attempt at a civil action to represent other prisoners. We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal because a nonfinal order transferring a postconviction motion to the proper jurisdiction “concern[s] venue.” Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(A); Myrick v. Inch, 303 So. 3d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).

“In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error.” Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979). Appellant's filing below was confusing and did not state any proper cause of action—criminal or civil. It was a compilation of various statements without any substance. We cannot say the trial court reversibly erred in its construction of the pleading, and so Appellant has not carried his burden on appeal.

Affirmed.

Long, J.

Ray and Nordby, JJ., concur.