Roy v. State, 37365
| Decision Date | 12 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 37365,37365 |
| Citation | 211 So.2d 554 |
| Parties | Robert David ROY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and Carleton L. Weidemeyer, Asst. Public Defender, for petitioner.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and William D. Roth, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
By petition for certiorari petitioner Roy seeks review of a decision of a District Court of Appeal, claiming a jurisdictional conflict of decisions on the same point of law. Florida Constitution, Article V, Section 4(2), F.S.A.; Roy v. State, 207 So.2d 52 (2d D.C.A., Fla.1968).
We must consider the jurisdictional period of time available to initiate certiorari proceedings to obtain review of decisions of District Courts of Appeal.
In the instant matter, the initial opinion of the District Court was filed December 29, 1967. In due time a petition for rehearing was filed. Thereafter, on February 16, 1968 the District Court filed an opinion on rehearing. Its mandate was subsequently filed on March 6, 1968. The petition for certiorari was filed here on April 30, 1968. The respondent insists that the petition should be dismissed on the ground that it was filed too late. The State claims that the time for filing the petition for certiorari began to run when the District Court filed its opinion on rehearing on February 16, 1968. In this view, the 60 day period for filing the petition ended April 16, 1968. We have mentioned that the petition was actually filed on April 30, 1968.
The petitioner insists that his petition was filed in time. He claims that the jurisdictional period did not begin to run until the mandate of the District Court was issued by that Court on March 6, 1968. He claims that the issuance of the mandate is the significant terminal act which initiates the running of the period during which review may be sought.
The position of the respondent is correct and the petition for certiorari must be dismissed.
The rule governing certiorari generally is Fla.App. Rule 4.5, subd. c(1), 32 F.S.A. It is there provided that the application for a writ of certiorari shall be filed in the reviewing court 'within 60 days from the Rendition of the decision, order, judgment or decree sought to be reviewed'. (Emphasis added)
The rule governing application to this Court for certiorari to review District Courts of Appeal is Fla.App. Rule 4.5, subd. c(6). It is there provided that 'the petition for certiorari under this rule shall be filed in the Supreme Court within 60 days from the Rendition of the order, decision or judgment of the district court of appeal'. (Emphasis added).
The critical word in the Court rule is 'rendition'. This is so because it is the rendition of the decision which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bernhardt v. State
...and presupposes the fact that probationer is not in prison confinement, Roy v. State, 207 So.2d 52 (Fla.App.1967), cert. dismissed, Fla., 211 So.2d 554. The purpose of the granting of probation as was allowed by the trial court sub judice pursuant to Section 948.01(1) without an actual adju......
-
Watt v. State, V--379
...155 So.2d 646 (Fla.App.3d, 1963), cert. den. 164 So.2d 805 (Fla.1964); Roy v. State, 207 So.2d 52 (Fla.App.2d, 1968), cert. dism. 211 So.2d 554 (Fla.1968); Falagan v. Wainwright, 195 So.2d 562 Courts are authorized to correct clerical errors in their orders and judgments within or beyond th......
-
Law v. Wainwright
...ROBERTS, C.J., and ERVIN, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur. 1 Roy v. State, 207 So.2d 52 (Fla.App.2nd 1968), cert. dismissed, 211 So.2d 554 (Fla.1968). Although inapplicable here, Fla.Stat. § 921.161(1), F.S.A., would allow a credit in a subsequent order within the same term.2 Falagan v. Wai......
-
Clemons v. State
...(Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Barr v. State, 474 So.2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Roy v. State, 207 So.2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967), cert. dismissed, 211 So.2d 554 (Fla.1968). The rationale in these cases stems from "the impossibility of complying with probation while in prison. Furthermore, the underlying ......