MURPHY v. STATE (2020)

Anthony Murphy appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging newly discovered evidence. Although we agree with the postconviction court that Murphy's current motion lacked merit, we are compelled to reverse and remand for entry of an amended order because the postconviction court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the subject motion.

The postconviction court entertained and denied the subject motion during the pendency of a separate appeal by Murphy to this Court concerning an earlier-filed rule 3.850 motion. Generally, in postconviction cases, the entry of an order on one postconviction motion “will not deprive trial courts of jurisdiction” to rule on another postconviction motion “so long as the issues raised in the two cases are unrelated.” Bates v. State, 704 So. 2d 562, 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). However, this Court has previously held that there is no concurrent jurisdiction for the lower court to rule if the claims in a pending appeal and in a motion before the postconviction court are “clearly related.” Siskos v. State, 163 So. 3d 739, 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

Here, both motions allege that the victim of the crimes for which Murphy was convicted had either recanted or expressed serious misgivings about identifying Murphy as the perpetrator. Because the subject motion was so closely related to the already pending appeal, the postconviction court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the subject motion.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

PER CURIAM.

EDWARDS, HARRIS and SASSO, JJ., concur.