Marshall v. State
Decision Date | 15 April 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 76--1355,76--1355 |
Parties | Larry MARSHALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Pending his appeal the appellant escaped from custody. He was recaptured several days later in Alabama and subsequently returned to jail in Florida. Thereafter, the state filed a motion to dismiss this appeal predicated upon his escape.
Historically, the appellate courts of Florida 1 as well as those throughout the nation 2 have declined to process appeals of persons who have escaped and are beyond the jurisdiction of the court. As our supreme court explained in Woodson:
The unique feature in this case is that appellant is now back within the jurisdiction of the court, albeit involuntarily. The question then is whether he 'waived' his right of appeal by escaping or whether the appeal should proceed now that he is amenable to further order of the court. The only Florida decision shedding any light on this issue is Mitchell v. State, supra, in which a defendant who was subsequently apprehended sought to reinstate his appeal which was dismissed following his escape. The court held that the appeal once dismissed when the defendant was beyond the jurisdiction of the court should not be reinstated simply because he was later apprehended. There is language in the opinion which could be construed to mean that the court felt that the defendant had waived his right of appeal at the time of his escape, but there is other language reiterating the principle that the reason an appeal is dismissed upon an escape is because the fugitive is no longer available to answer the further order of the court.
The recent case of Estelle v. Dorrough, 420 U.S. 534, 95 S.Ct. 1173, 43 L.Ed.2d 377 (1975), demonstrates that there is no federal constitutional prohibition to dismissing appellant's appeal. In that case the defendant had escaped and was caught two days later. The Texas Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal under a Texas statute which provides for automatic dismissal of pending appeals by escaped felons who do not return voluntarily within ten days. The defendant then pursued his rights in the federal courts. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Dorrough v. Estelle, 497 F.2d 1007 (5th Cir. 1974), held that because of certain exceptions stated therein the statute violated the equal protection clause of the federal constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed. The court held that the statute was constitutional because the exceptions were based upon reasonable classifications. At the same time, the court observed that there was no federal constitutional right to state appellate review of state criminal convictions and pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court, itself, had long followed the practice of declining to review the convictions of escaped criminal defendants.
The Texas...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
...continued to recognize that the state's right to appeal in criminal cases was governed by statute. 2 Similarly, in Marshall v. State, 344 So.2d 646, 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), Justice Grimes, then a district court judge, declared for an unanimous panel: "Our Florida Constitution guarantees con......
-
AMEND. TO FLA. RULES OF APPELLATE PROC.
...continued to recognize that the state's right to appeal in criminal cases was governed by statute. 2 Similarly, in Marshall v. State, 344 So.2d 646, 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), Justice Grimes, then a district court judge, declared for an unanimous panel: "Our Florida Constitution guarantees con......
-
MATTER OF S.H.
...should add withdrawal of the right of appeal to the statutory punishments prescribed for the crime of escape"); Marshall v. State, 344 So.2d 646, 648 (Fl.Dist.Ct.App. 1977) (denying motion to dismiss case of a re-apprehended appellant in part because "our legislature has established escape ......
-
State v. Gurican
...her appeal. In support of her argument, Gurican relies upon Brown v. State, 388 So.2d 586 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), and Marshall v. State, 344 So.2d 646 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 353 So.2d 679 (Fla.1977), which refused to dismiss escapees' appeals after their return, and invites this Court to......
-
A Constitutional Right to an Appeal: Guarding Against Unacceptable Risks of Erroneous Conviction
...his right of appeal."). 135. Id. at 815-16. 136. Id. 137. State v. Goldsmith, 112 Ariz. 399, 542 P.2d 1098 (1976); Marshall v. State, 344 So. 2d 646 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 353 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1977); Mascarenas v. State, 94 N.M. 506, 612 P.2d 1317 (1980). But see State v. Brad......