of the information filed by the Statewide Prosecutor. Nor did he ever file a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction. Instead, he pleaded no contest to the charges against him without preserving any alleged errors or reserving his right to appeal any pre-plea rulings of the trial court. Now, five years after the plea, he seeks to raise the alleged lack of jurisdiction by the Statewide Prosecutor in this untimely rule 3.850 motion. I recognize that if the Statewide Prosecutor files an information but lacks jurisdiction to prosecute the case, the trial court’s jurisdiction is not properly invoked. See, e.g., Brown v. State, 917 So.2d 272, 273 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Winter v. State, 781 So.2d 1111, 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); cf. Sawyer v. State, 94 Fla. 60, 113 So. 736 (1927) (<HOLDING>). As such, any judgment arising from that
holding that the state law of preclusion must be followed even when federal jurisdiction over the subject matter of a claim is exclusive holding that court had no supplemental jurisdiction over claim by shareholder for breach of merger agreement that was the subject of the dispute between the merger partners over which the district court had subject matter jurisdiction holding that the information must establish that the court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties holding that because a valid arbitration clause existed the parties had to arbitrate all disputes when the subject matter of the dispute has a reasonable relationship to the subject matter of the contract holding that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over a commonlaw wrongful discharge claim