State v. Lasley, 86-3168
| Decision Date | 15 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-3168,86-3168 |
| Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1262,507 So.2d 711 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1262 STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Edwin LASLEY and Robert Buchanan, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Appellees have moved to dismiss this appeal as untimely filed. For the reasons set forth herein we deny the motion to dismiss.
Both appellees entered pleas of no contest to driving under the influence of alcohol and were adjudged guilty and sentenced. On November 3, 1986, the county court granted appellees' motions to vacate and permitted them to withdraw those pleas. The state filed its notice of appeal December 2, 1986. The trial court previously had entered an order certifying that this case involves a question of great public importance, and we accepted jurisdiction. Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(b)(4) and 9.160.
Appellees reason that the appeal is untimely because Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(2) requires the state to file its notice of appeal within fifteen days of rendition of the order to be reviewed; rule 9.160(b) specifically provides that these discretionary proceedings are commenced just as if the appeal were being taken to the circuit court. Ordinarily this might be so. However, rule 9.140 governs appeal proceedings in criminal cases only. The present appeal is from a final order under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which specifically provides that "[a]n appeal may be taken to the appropriate appellate court from the order entered upon the motion as from a final judgment on application for writ of habeas corpus." Like a habeas corpus proceeding an action under rule 3.850 is considered civil in nature and collateral to the criminal prosecution which resulted in the judgment of conviction, notwithstanding the inclusion of rule 3.850 within the criminal rules. Green v. State, 280 So.2d 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Tolar v. State, 196 So.2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); Lett v. State, 195 So.2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(b), not 9.140(c)(2), controls, and affords the prospective appellant thirty days to file his notice of appeal. The state filed its notice within these time limits.
Appellees also argue...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrison v. Norris
...in the judgment of conviction, notwithstanding the inclusion of [the PCR] rule ... within the criminal rules. State v. Lasley, 507 So.2d 711 (Fla.App.2d Dist.1987). 1 Citations omitted, emphasis While PCR is concerned with civil and criminal law in the broad sense and is unique or hybrid in......
-
Saucer v. State
...such as those initiated under rule 3.850 because they are in the nature of independent collateral civil actions); State v. Lasley, 507 So.2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (noting that like a habeas corpus proceeding an action under rule 3.850 is considered civil in nature and collateral to the cri......
-
Rozier v. State, 92-507
...are in the nature of independent collateral civil actions. See State v. White, 470 So.2d 1377, 1378 (Fla.1985). In State v. Lasley, 507 So.2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), the court noted that, "[l]ike a habeas corpus proceeding an action under rule 3.850 is considered civil in nature and collate......
-
State v. Chambers, 2D04-419.
...we note that the State may appeal an order granting postconviction relief. See § 924.066(2), Fla. Stat. (2003); State v. Lasley, 507 So.2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). On the merits, we agree with the State's argument that the trial court improperly granted relief without requiring Chambers to p......