State ex rel. Faircloth v. District Court of Appeal In and For First Dist., Tallahassee
| Decision Date | 23 February 1966 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 34572,34612,s. 34572 |
| Citation | 194 So.2d 600 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida ex rel. Earl FAIRCLOTH, Attorney General, Relator, v. The DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN AND FOR the FIRST DISTRICT, TALLAHASSEE, Florida, and the Honorable John S. Rawls, Honorable Wallace E. Sturgis, Honorable John T. Wigginton, Honorable Donald K. Carroll, and Honorable Dewey M. Johnson, respectively Chief Judge and Judges thereof, Respondents (two cases). |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., John S. Burton, Asst. Atty. Gen., in Case No. 34,572; James G. Mahorner, Asst. Atty. Gen., in Case No. 34,612, for relator.
T. Edward Austin, Jr., Jacksonville, for respondents.
Relator in each of these cases, consolidated for review, seeks a writ of prohibition directed to the District Court of Appeal, First District, and the judges thereof, to prevent that court from exceeding its jurisdiction by considering the appeals of Lawrence Cousineau, alias Larry Cousineau and Willie Young, alias 'Booster' Young; Calvin W. Thomas, alias 'Pop' Thomas and Harold Simon, alias 'Jackie' Simon, from orders denying their respective motions under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.
Relator's motion to dismiss the notices of appeal upon the ground they were not filed within sixty (60) days required by Florida Appellate Rule 3.2(b), 31 F.S.A. was denied by the District Court. Upon the suggestion of Relator rule nisi issued and returns were filed. Briefs and argument of counsel have been considered.
Inasmuch as the circumstances here are similar to those of Barton v. State, 1 cited by Respondents in support of their denial of the motions to dismiss, we find no reason to disturb the decision of the District Court.
The rule nisi in each of these causes is, therefore, discharged and the causes dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rolon v. State, 36393
...for relying on the 90-day rule which previously prevailed. We cited the Barton opinion with approval in State ex rel. Faircloth v. District Court of Appeal, 194 So.2d 600 (Fla.1966). In the Faircloth decision, we allowed several appeals filed more than 60 but less than 90 days from the Rule......
-
Green v. State, 73--232
...with the specific provisions of Rule 3.850, RCrP. Barton v. State, Fla.App.1965,176 So.2d 597; State ex rel. Faircloth v. District Court of Appeal, Fla.1966, 194 So.2d 600, and Lawrence v. State, Fla.1967, 198 So.2d It follows that the time for taking an appeal from an order denying a motio......
-
Lawrence v. State
...of the rule announced in Barton v. State (DCA 1st), 176 So.2d 597, and, State ex rel. Faircloth v. District Court of Appeal, Fla., 194 So.2d 600. Thereunder, the time for appealing an order denying a Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix motion is sixty (60) It is so ordered. T......