Newsom v. State
| Decision Date | 14 August 1951 |
| Citation | 54 So.2d 58 |
| Parties | NEWSOM v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Ray Sandstrom and Erle L. Griffis, Macclenny, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant was adjudged guilty of armed robbery and sentenced to the penitentiary. The last day of the period allowed for taking an appeal came on Sunday so he filed his appeal the following day. The question now before us is presented by the Attorney General's motion to dismiss on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the cause.
The applicable statute, Sec. 924.09, Florida Statutes 1941, and F.S.A., provides the time within which an appeal may be taken.
As early as 1905 in the case of Simmons v. Hanne, 50 Fla. 267, 39 So. 77, 80, we recognized the general rule that 'in computing the time within which an act * * * must be done, if the last day falls on * * * Sunday, it can not be excluded, and the act [be properly] done on the Monday following' in the absence of statutory provision to that effect. (Italics supplied). Such a provision is absent from the act we have cited.
As late as 1948, in Re Warner's Estate, 160 Fla. 103, 33 So.2d 728, we reiterated the rule announced in the cited case.
We re-declare the rule now only because the present case involves criminal procedure while the others dealt with a writ of error and an appeal from the probate court to the circuit court. However, we find in these differences no reason to deviate from the law of computation adopted in the decisions already rendered. The rules of construction are just as appropriate here and, besides, it is well to promote uniformity by making harmonious our decisions on the matter of measuring time.
In accordance with these views the motion to dismiss is granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Ervin v. Smith, 32843
...is not met the appellate court simply has no jurisdiction--no power--to act. Purdy v. State, 150 Fla. 172, 7 So.2d 109; Newsom v. State, Fla., 54 So.2d 58; Bell v. State, 154 Fla. 505, 18 So.2d 361; Lee v. State, 128 Fla. 319, 174 So. 589; Donin v. Goss, Fla., 69 So.2d Respondents, however,......
-
Metropolitan Dade County, Fla. v. Eisenberg
...it might be altered as a result of evidence that may be produced. See and compare State v. Smith, 160 So.2d 518 (Fla.1964); Newsom v. State, 54 So.2d 58 (Fla.1951); Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. International Longshoremen's Association of New York, New York, 625 F.2d 38 (5th Cir.1980); Canal Au......
-
Hood v. State, F-71
...is not met the appellate court simply has no jurisdiction--no power--to act. Purdy v. State, 150 Fla. 172, 7 So.2d 109; Newsom v. State, Fla., 54 So.2d 58; Bell v. State, 154 Fla. 505, 18 So.2d 361; Lee v. State, 128 Fla. 319, 174 So. 589; Donin v. Goss, Fla., 69 So.2d The appeal is initiat......
-
Finley v. State, 5077
...claims that the ninety day statutory period is absolute and cannot be waived or extended by the courts. The state cites Newsom v. State, Fla.App., 1951, 54 So.2d 58; Wells et al. v. State, Fla.App.,1949, 38 So.2d 464; Bell v. State, 1944, 154 Fla.App., 505, 18 So.2d 361. These decisions wer......