Cravero v. State, s. 75--1628
| Decision Date | 16 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 75--1628,75--1913,s. 75--1628 |
| Citation | 334 So.2d 152 |
| Parties | Richard Douglas CRAVERO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Milton Grusmark, Miami, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Linda C. Hertz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, HENDRY and NATHAN, JJ.
ON MOTION TO DISMISS
This cause is before us on consideration of the motion of the appellee, State of Florida, to dismiss the two appeals of the defendant Cravero. The appeals stem from the prosecution of three defendants, Richard Douglas Cravero, appellant herein, together with Ronald Clifford Chandler and Robert Greenwood, all of whom were charged in one indictment with conspiracy to commit murder and first degree murder arising out of the same incident. In a joint jury trial, all three defendants were found guilty, and were convicted and sentenced.
Each defendant filed a separate motion for new trial from his judgment of conviction and sentence. The certificates of service and the affidavits of counsel reflect that the motions for new trial filed by the three defendants were all timely. The orders of the trial court denying the motions for new trial were filed as follows: Cravero, August 21, 1975; Chandler, September 18, 1975; Greenwood, December 8, 1975. Each defendant filed a notice of appeal from his own judgment, sentence and denial of motion for new trial as follows: Cravero, September 26, 1975; Chandler, October 16, 1975; Greenwood, December 23, 1975. The appeal by defendant Cravero from his judgment, sentence and denial of motion for new trial was dismissed by this court as being untimely. 1 Greenwood's and Chandler's notices of appeal were timely. Within the period of time that Greenwood's and Chandler's appeals were due to be filed, defendant Cravero timely filed the two instant appeals. The first is from Chandler's judgment of conviction and denial of motion for new trial, and the second is from Greenwood's.
The issue with which we are confronted on the State's motion to dismiss these appeals is whether in the conspiracy case sub judice, where the co-conspirators have filed separate motions for new trial alleging the same grounds therefor, one defendant may take an appeal from a codefendant's judgment of conviction and denial of motion for new trial.
Where multiple defendants are tried for the same offense in a consolidated trial where the issues and facts are identical, one appeal suffices. Lowe v. State, Fla.1966, 184 So.2d 164, 166. Thus, a single appeal can be taken from separate but identical judgments. 2 Applying this to the facts of the instant case, if the three defendants had filed one motion for new trial, one notice of appeal from the denial thereof would be sufficient. In fact, had they filed one motion for new trial, their judgments of conviction would not be rendered for purposes of appeal except upon denial of the motion for new trial.
State ex rel. Owens v. Pearson, Fla.1963, 156 So.2d 4, 7, although a civil case, holds that where a motion for new trial is pending, the effectiveness of a notice of appeal theretofore filed is destroyed. This is so because the trial court has complete control over the judgment, and such judgment is not final and has not been rendered for purposes of taking an appeal until the motion for new trial has been ruled upon. The time for taking an appeal, then, does not commence to run until the date of the entry of the order denying the motion for new trial. Applying the rationale of Owens, supra, and Lowe v. State, supra, to the case sub judice, the Greenwood and Chandler judgments and convictions were not rendered until the date of the entry of the order denying motions for new trial.
As a general rule, the conviction of one defendant in a conspiracy prosecution will not be upheld if all other alleged conspirators are acquitted. Filer v. State, Fla.App.1973, 285 So.2d 669; United States v. Goodwin, 5th Cir. 1974, 492 F.2d 1141....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Powell
...the exception. Filer v. State, 285 So.2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Pearce v. State, 330 So.2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Cravero v. State, 334 So.2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 342 So.2d 1103 (Fla.1977); Sparkman v. State, 528 So.2d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). However, more recently both ......
-
Munroe v. State, BM-117
...of a conspiracy, the non-moving defendant may become the beneficiary of that event. We are able to extract from Cravero v. State, 334 So.2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), rev. denied, 342 So.2d 1103 (Fla.1977), a logical basis for undertaking review of the sufficiency of the evidence. Having done ......
-
Register v. State, 90-0385
...because the only other alleged conspirator has been acquitted. Sparkman v. State, 528 So.2d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Cravero v. State, 334 So.2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Filer v. State, 285 So.2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA Register and Richard Pickover were jointly charged in Count II of the informatio......
- State v. Cravero