STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. EARL FAIRCLOTH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, RELATOR,
v.
THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN AND FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA, AND THE HONORABLE JOHN S. RAWLS, HONORABLE WALLACE E. STURGIS, HONORABLE JOHN T. WIGGINTON, HONORABLE DONALD K. CARROLL, AND HONORABLE DEWEY M. JOHNSON, RESPECTIVELY CHIEF JUDGE AND JUDGES THEREOF, RESPONDENTS (TWO CASES)
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that prohibition would not issue to prevent the District Court of Appeal from considering appeals filed beyond the sixty-day limit, as the District Court had already denied motions to dismiss.
Relator sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the District Court of Appeal from considering appeals from orders denying motions under Criminal Proce…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rule 1 cases and more on FLexlaw
Relator in each of these cases, consolidated for review, seeks a writ of prohibition directed to the District Court of Appeal, First District, and the judges thereof, to prevent that court from exceeding its jurisdiction by considering the appeals of Lawrence Cousineau, alias Larry Cousineau and Willie Young, alias “Booster” Young; Calvin W. Thomas, alias “Pop” Thomas and Harold Simon, alias “Jackie” Simon, from orders denying their respective motions under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.
Relator’s motion to dismiss the notices of appeal upon the ground they were not filed within sixty (60) days required by Florida Appellate Rule 3.2(b), 31 F.S.A. was denied by the District Court. Upon the suggestion of Relator rule nisi issued and returns were filed. Briefs and argument of counsel have been considered.
Inasmuch as the circumstances here are similar to those of Barton v. State,1 cited by Respondents in support of their denial of the motions to dismiss, we find no reason to disturb the decision of the District Court.
The rule nisi in each of these causes is, therefore, discharged and the causes dismissed.
THORNAL, C. J. and THOMAS, ROBERTS, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Green v. State, 280 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…cedure, both at the trial and appellate levels, except where those rules are inconsistent with the specific provisions of Rule 3.850, RCrP. Barton v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 597; State ex rel. Faircloth v. District Court of Appeal, Fla.1966, 194 So. 2d 600, and Lawrence v. State, Fla.1967, 198 So. 2d 328. It follows that the time for taking an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate is 30 days from the rendition of that order. See Rule 3.2, subd. b, F.A.R., 32 F.S.A. In the present case, the…
-
Lawrence v. State, 198 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 1967)…[*329] PER CURIAM. The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the authority of the rule announced in Barton v. State (DCA 1st), 176 So. 2d 597, and, State ex rel. Faircloth v. District Court of Appeal, Fla., 194 So. 2d 600. Thereunder, the time for appealing an order denying a Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S. A. ch. 924 Appendix motion is sixty (60) days. It is so ordered. THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROB-ERf S, DREW and ERVIN, JJ., concur.…
-
Isidoro Cotto Rolon v. State, 201 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1967)…This decision was given prospective application only, because there was ample justification for relying on the 90-day rule which previously prevailed. We cited the Barton opinion with approval in State ex rel. Faircloth v. District Court of Appeal, 194 So. 2d 600 (Fla.1966). In the Faircloth decision, we allowed several appeals filed more than 60 but less than 90 days from the Rule I denials, because all the orders denying Rule I relief were entered prior to the effective date of Barton, June 29, 1965. But i…
Authorities Cited
- Chambers v. State, 176 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)