Jenkins v. Lyles
| Decision Date | 04 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 38356,38356 |
| Citation | 223 So.2d 740 |
| Parties | Eli S. JENKINS, Petitioner, v. Hon. Woody A. LYLES, as Chief Judge; Hon. William C. Pierce; Hon. Joseph McNulty; Hon. T. Frank Hobson, Jr.; and Hon. Robert Mann, as the Judges of and constituting the District Court of Appeal, Second District, State of Florida, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Mark R. Hawes, Tampa, for petitioner.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and William D. Roth, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.
The trial court orally granted a motion to quash an information filed against Petitioner. The State filed its Notice of Appeal 1 from said oral order but a copy thereof was not served on Petitioner as required by Rule 6.6(a), Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A., and Section 924.13, Florida Statutes 1967, F.S.A. 2 A few days thereafter the trial judge entered a written order dismissing the information, from which no appeal has been taken.
Petitioner moved, in the District Court of Appeal where said cause was pending, to dismiss the appeal on the following grounds:
'1. That it had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Rule 6.6(a), F.A.R., and § 924.13, F.S.A.
The motion was denied without opinion.
Petitioner contends here that the District Court is without jurisdiction.
Petitioner argues that the requirement that he be served with a copy of the Notice of Appeal is jurisdictional. We do not agree. The filing of the Notice of Appeal from an appealable decision vests jurisdiction in the reviewing court. Failure to serve a copy on the defendant may under appropriate circumstances, justify a dismissal of the appeal but it does not require it. As in other violations of the rules governing procedural matters in appellate review, appropriate sanctions may be imposed, but a dismissal is not proper in the absence of a showing of substantial prejudice to the moving party. The record here does not demonstrate that Petitioner has been prejudiced by the failure to serve a copy on him. 3
The same question was before us in the case of State of Florida v. White, No. 35,448. 4 The original files show that there, as here, the Notice of Appeal was Not served on the appellee, and after the appeal was taken he moved to dismiss the same because such failure to comply with the rule and statute divested the Court of jurisdiction to review the action of the trial court. On July 12, 1966, an order (unreported) was entered denying the Motion to Dismiss.
A more serious question is presented in the question concerning the state's attempt to appeal from an Oral order of the court. The rules provide that all orders 'not entered in open court * * * shall be in writing.' 5 The only appealable order in this case is the one entered In writing on September 12th, 1968. The attempt to review this order by a Notice of Appeal from an oral order pronounced several days prior thereto is wholly ineffective to confer jurisdiction on the District Court. 6
Petitioner--as an additional point--argues that the order--written or oral--is not a reviewable judgment because it is interlocutory, and cites State v. Lee, 170 So.2d 464 (2d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1965), in support of that contention. Since the Lee decision, the rules have been amended to provide that, for the purposes of appeal by the State under the provisions of Section 924.07(1), Florida Statutes 1967, F.S.A., an 'order quashing' shall be taken and held to mean 'order dismissing.' 7 Lee is no longer applicable.
Respondents are prohibited from proceeding further in the pending appeal.
It is so ordered.
THORNAL, J., concurs for reasons herein and in our decision in State v. Kahler, Fla., 224 So.2d 272, filed May 28, 1969.
1 § 924.07, Fla.Stat. (1967), F.S.A., provides: 'An appeal may be taken by the state from: (1) An order quashing * * * an information * * *.'
2 Rule 6.6(a), Fla.App.R., provides: § 924.13, Fla.Stat. (1967), F.S.A., states: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Creighton
...state's right of appeal in criminal cases was governed by statute. See, e.g., Carroll v. State, 251 So.2d 866 (Fla.1971); Jenkins v. Lyles, 223 So.2d 740 (Fla.1969); State v. Diamond, 188 So.2d 788, 789 (Fla.1966); State v. Harris, 136 So.2d 633 (Fla.1962); State v. Schroeder, 112 So.2d 257......
-
Williams v. State
...as to whether this synonym was to apply equally to both criminal as well as civil appeals was settled by this Court in Jenkins v. Lyles, 223 So.2d 740 (Fla.1969). Therein we expressly overruled the decision of the Second District Court in Gossett v. State, 188 So.2d 836 (Fla.App.2d 1966), w......
-
State v. Wells, 47028
...until reduced to writing* and filed with the trial court clerk. State ex rel. Faircloth v. Cross, 238 So.2d 81 (Fla.1970); Jenkins v. Lyles, 223 So.2d 740 (Fla.1969); State v. Breeze, 300 So.2d 729 (Fla.App., 2d Dist.1974); State v. Law, 297 So.2d 347 (Fla.2d Dist.1974). Treating the papers......
-
State v. Malone
...jurisdiction in this court. State v. Shedaker, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 429; State v. Malone, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 892; Jenkins v. Lyles, Fla.1969, 223 So.2d 740. The effect of this ruling was to leave the matter still pending in the trial court until such time as a formal written order w......