Whether the trial court exceeded its lawful authority by entering orders that dispose of the merits of the case while a ruling on the Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief was still pending

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : (1, WHEMER AA. RULtilen Dealutaly e PEACH OR WEL OF MALDANALS ax ARE ORADA. SUPREME. COURT DEPURGLRE ROM (He. ESStANCAL REQUIREMEAICS OF LALd AUD ABLUDOAileY OR FILMU 46 MOLO.d £8 Oudt PRECEDE Aut DEotELOINs of 118 APPELLATE COURTS 48 SEC CORTE LATHE RULES OF COURT ALD CTHER. LALS3 OR DECREES ? (2). WHETHER THE. TRIAL COLE EXALEDED £43 LALFIL AUIHOREESY ay eOeALuy OTHER ORDERS — MSPost Ave. OF THE. MERTS OF THE CASE WHILE A RULLNIC ONTHE RULE 3.850 > MOTION FOR POST CoAT RELIEE WAS Sita PEMD” ON REMAND COR RUE EDERNARY HEAROUAr ? | 05), WHERER “he RELL COURS TentieRihNee A SéCCD AiDOMELY AL SeLuestre. OY Ke SECOUID ORSUCAESIOR COURT WHEE Larne AURISDICHOM 400M vio akn TRE DOUBLE. AecPAAy CLASES. OF Hie. Sti. MAD FEDERAL. coUStCCOUS. AKL We (HER ae COURTS ACTHOUS RESULTED Aut A MAS krethoe: af AUSHCE. AID MAMIFES . MMSRECARD FOR LEMAL PRECEDENT | CE. WHETHER. A DEKRK RE ROM “ie. ESSeAKCAL ReaudeeNEACs Of HE Li a da Ac tut Aue. ANAL PEAS, AUDCAMERL(S, ANID stays ABA ARE TRODLOtS Of Courity REAS ORE TREDECESSOR fina Au Suk SPORE Ae Mey tates Aud sath ws WHOLE ARIAL. EftheR BénCH OR AURY REML,. LOR 010 ee Ge LQUES) Ue tcy At AL Ou OF OnE WHO 48 AC FAPTUALLY fimwace nlf? MALLY Aud 4 —