Parnell v. State, 94-01417
| Decision Date | 27 July 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-01417,94-01417 |
| Citation | 642 So.2d 1092 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D1624 Theodore PARNELL, a/k/a Ted Parnell, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Theodore Parnell appeals an order that denied his request for a copy of an earlier order denying postconviction relief. He also appeals the denial of his request for a belated appeal of the earlier order. The documents provided to this court do not include an order on either the earlier motion for postconviction relief or the subsequent motion. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and instruct the trial court to render appropriate orders on remand.
Mr. Parnell was sentenced as a habitual offender on November 13, 1991. He filed a motion for postconviction relief on November 25, 1991. The trial court has not provided this court with a copy of that motion, and the attorney general has provided only the cover page. Thus, we do not know what grounds were raised in that motion.
The trial court rubber-stamped the cover page as follows: "ORDER Motion/Petition heard, considered and ________, this ____ day of ____, 19__." The rubber stamp was filled in with the date, December 9, 1991, and signed by Judge Bob Anderson Mitcham. There is no date stamped on the cover sheet to indicate that this rubber-stamped order was ever filed with the clerk of circuit court. There is no indication that a copy of this "order" was ever served on Mr. Parnell. On its face, the order violates Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(g) because it does not inform the prisoner of his right to appeal within thirty days. We have received a copy of a docket sheet on which the only relevant entry is an ambiguous entry concerning both the motion and its denial on December 10, 1991.
On March 22, 1994, Mr. Parnell filed a motion requesting a copy of any order denying postconviction relief and requesting a belated appeal of such an order. In the motion, he explained that he had recently learned of the December 10, 1991, docket entry, but had never received the order. Because the trial court never prepared an order, other than the rubber-stamped denial, Mr. Parnell's allegation may be correct. Nevertheless, the same trial judge denied the motion on April 10, 1994, using the same rubber stamp. On the face of the motion, someone has indicated "copies sent to SAO [State Attorney's office] and PD [Public Defender]." It is unclear whether these offices received copies of the motion or the order. Mr. Parnell apparently received this order, because he filed an appeal within thirty days, even though the order did not comply with rule 3.850(g).
Appellate courts have previously discouraged the use of rubber stamps to rule upon such motions. Smith v. State, 582 So.2d 796 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); State v. Moore, 563 So.2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); State v. Green, 527...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sills v. State, 98-02971
...DCA 1997); Washington v. State, 694 So.2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Turner v. State, 667 So.2d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Parnell v. State, 642 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Gibson v. State, 642 So.2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. Sullivan, 640 So.2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. Moore, 563......
-
Suleiman v. State, 2D03-1863.
...2d DCA 1996); Gibson v. State, 642 So.2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. Sullivan, 640 So.2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Parnell v. State, 642 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). On remand, I would encourage the trial judge to review our prior opinions and enter a written order that fully complies wi......
-
Henry's Office Supplies v. Henry, 98-4013.
...required by rule 9.020(h). Appellate courts have previously discouraged the use of rubber stamps to rule on motions. Parnell v. State, 642 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Gibson v. State, 642 So.2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Davenport v. State, 640 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Smith v. State, ......
-
Hampton v. State, 99-02809.
...of "rubber-stamp" denial that this court has disapproved for use on motions seeking postconviction relief. See, e.g., Parnell v. State, 642 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Because the order appears to contain a clerk's filing date, we deem it to be sufficiently rendered so that we may review ...