STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. AARON A. SEBERS, RELATOR,
v.
HON. JOSEPH P. MCNULTY, AS CHIEF JUDGE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 Florida Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition preventing the Second District Court of Appeal from proceeding with a state appeal in a robbery case, holding that the appeal was untimely filed because the time to appeal ran from the date the trial judge signed the order setting aside the verdict (December 10, 1974), not the date it was recorded (January 16, 1975).
The appeal was untimely because the time for filing an appeal runs from the date the trial judge signed the order (December 10, 1974), not the date it was recorded (January 16, 1975). An order setting aside a verdict, though denominated a motion for mistrial, is appealable as a motion for new trial.
[1] A motion denominated as a motion for mistrial, but which is ruled upon after the trial and has the legal effect of a motion for new trial, is appealable as an order grant…
[2] The time for commencing an appeal runs from the date an order is rendered, which occurs when all acts necessary to its rendition have been completed.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Although the motion was denominated a motion for mistrial, correctly labeled at the time it was made during the course of trial, it was in legal effect when ruled upon a motion for new trial.”
Establishes that the characterization of a motion is less important than its legal effect when ruled upon, allowing an otherwise untimely mistrial motion to be treated as an appealable new trial motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAaron Sebers was tried for robbery on December 5, 1974, and found guilty by jury. During trial, Sebers' attorney moved for mistrial, but the trial jud…
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 Suggestion For Writ Of Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
ENGLAND, Justice.
Relator has filed a suggestion for a writ of prohibition seeking to prevent further prosecution of an appeal pending before the Second District Court of Appeal on the grounds that (i) the appeal was untimely filed and (ii) the order granting mistrial was not appealable.
On December 5, 1974, Relator was tried in the Pinellas County Circuit Court for the offense of robbery, and found guilty by the jury. During the trial his attorney moved for mistrial, but the trial judge reserved ruling on the motion. Five days after the trial, the trial judge conducted a hearing on Relator’s motion, after which he set aside the trial and jury verdict. Although the motion was denominated a motion for mistrial, correctly labeled at the time it was made during the course of trial, it was in legal effect when ruled upon a motion for new trial.1 As such, the order was appealable.2
For reasons not explained in the record, the trial judge signed a second order granting the motion for mistrial on January 15, 1975, dating it December 10, 1974. The state filed a notice of appeal on January 31, 1975. Relator moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely, contending that the time for appeal ran from December 10, 1974. The district court denied the motion and now has the appeal pending before it. All acts necessary to constitute “rendition” of the order having occurred on December 10, 1974,3 the time for commencing appeal expired before the state commenced its appeal on January 31, 1975.
Relator’s request for a writ is granted. Respondents are prohibited from proceeding with the appeal in this case.
ADKINS, C. J., OVERTON and DREW (Retired), JJ., and HARDING, Circuit Judge, concur. . A motion for mistrial can only be made during a trial, while a motion for new trial can only be made after a trial. Characterization when made is not as important as the legal effect at the time of ruling. Both of these motions, however, test the extent of error in the course of a proceeding. A & P Bakery Supply and Equipment Co. v. H. Hexter & Son, Inc., 149 So. 2d 883 (3d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1963),
. Section 924.07(2), Fla.Stat. . Fla.App. Rule 1.3. Although the trial court’s order was not “recorded” until January 16, 1975, it was “filed” at the time of signing on December 10, 1974. The latter date, not the former, controls because an order granting a new trial is not required to be recorded under the Rule.
ENGLAND, Justice.
On Rehearing
On petition for rehearing, the state attempts by allegation and affidavit to demonstrate that its appeal was timely because the trial court’s original order was not, as indicated in footnote 3 of our opinion, “filed” on December 10, 1974. The state’s contention must be rejected. This attempt to supplement and correct the record on appeal on the major point at issue in this case comes too late.1 The state had ample time to produce this evidence before the case was argued to this Court.
In any event, the allegations and affidavit presented by the state do not address, let alone explain, the irreconcilable inconsistency between the late-filed affidavit and the photostatic copy of the trial court’s December 10 order which is contained in the original record on appeal. The latter bears the signature of the trial judge and the “filed” stamp of the circuit court clerk, duly initialed by a deputy clerk and dated December 10.
The original order of the Court is supported by the record on appeal, and the petition for rehearing is denied.
ADKINS, C. J., OVERTON and DREW (Retired), JJ., and HARDING, Circuit Judge, concur. . See Fla.App. Rule 3.6(j).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Chapman Levi Creighton, 469 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 1985)…A 1965). Cases decided after the 1972 revision of article V still recognize the right of appeal as a matter of substantive law controllable by statute not only in criminal cases but in civil cases as well. See, e.g., State ex rel. Sebers v. McNulty, 326 So. 2d 17 (Fla.1975); Clement v. Aztec Sales, Inc., 297 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1974); State v. Matera, 378 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); State v. I.B., 366 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); State v. Brown, [*740] 330 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); see generally Fla.R…
-
Exposito v. State, 891 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2004)…, not motions to reduce.” Id. Thus, the defendant’s labeling of the motion as one to reduce rather than to dismiss did not control the appealability of the pretrial order under section 924.07(l)(a). See id.; see also State ex rel. Sebers v. McNulty, 326 So. 2d 17, 18 (Fla.1975) (holding that the defendant’s motion for a mistrial, which the trial court took under advisement and did not grant until five days after the jury was discharged, was in legal effect a motion for a new trial, making the trial court’s d…
-
State v. Hankerson, 482 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…le to conviction for some lesser offense — here, theft. But, as is well established, the label a party gives to a motion does not control its legal effect or the appealability of an order disposing of the motion. See State ex rel. Sebers v. McNulty, 326 So. 2d 17 (Fla.1975) (defendant’s renewed motion for mistrial after guilty verdict was in legal effect a motion for new trial and order granting same ap-pealable by the State). We are fully cognizant that the statute affording to the State a right to appeal…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- A & P Bakery Supply & Equip. Co. v. H. Hexter & SON, Inc., 149 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)