Case Name: David M. HARPHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-06-23
Citations: 415 So. 2d 863
Docket Number: No. 82-686
Parties: David M. HARPHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr. and CO-WART, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 415
Pages: 863–863

Head Matter:
David M. HARPHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 82-686.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
June 23, 1982.
Charles A. Tabscott, Orlando, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.

Opinion:
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 CO-WART, JJ., concur.