State v. Moore, 88-03309
| Decision Date | 18 May 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-03309,88-03309 |
| Citation | 563 So.2d 115 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D1387 STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Mark Christian MOORE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Candace M. Sunderland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for State.
Stephen Krosschell, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellee.
We temporarily relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court and grant the state twenty days to obtain an appealable order.
In this appeal by the state, this court has been presented with a record containing the defendant's written motion to suppress. In the margin of that motion appears the following rubber stamp imprint:
MOTION HEARD, CONSIDERED AND __________ EXCEPTION NOTED THIS __________ 19__. YOU ARE ADVISED THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO APPEAL THIS ORDER WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THIS ORDER IS FILED.
__________
Judge
After the word "and" the word "Granted" is hand printed. There is no entry in the second blank. After "19" is printed "88." The blank provided for the judge's signature contains two initials which are indecipherable. The motion to suppress was filed November 10, 1988, and the transcript of the hearing on the motion indicates the motion was heard and orally granted on November 14, 1988. Other than the above imprint, no written order granting the defendant's motion to suppress appears in the record. The state files this appeal from the trial court's granting of the motion to suppress.
The case law is clear that an order is not appealable until it is rendered, and rendition does not occur until the order is reduced to writing, signed, and filed with the clerk of the lower court. Billie v. State, 473 So.2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(g). In State v. Green, 527 So.2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), this court found that the oral pronouncement of the trial court denying a motion for rehearing and the stamped order denying rehearing did not satisfy the rendition rule. Based on that finding, this court held that the notice of appeal was timely filed from the date of the written order although it would not be timely from the date of the stamped order. In Green, this court was careful to point out that it was not condemning the practice of stamping orders as a whole, but merely in the instances where the orders must establish a point from which critical time periods are measured.
That language in Green is quite applicable here. Because the stamped order in this instance is not dated and the only filing date appearing on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. of Conn. v. Sealey
...written order is filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal." See Casto v. Casto, 404 So.2d 1046, 1047 (Fla.1981); State v. Moore, 563 So.2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Here, the judgment was reduced to writing, signed, and filed on May 10, 2001. The time for an appeal began to run from that Th......
-
Smith v. State
...insufficient to invoke the appellate court's jurisdiction. See Johnson v. State, 573 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); State v. Moore, 563 So.2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and remand this cause to the trial court with directions to enter within twenty days an ......
-
Sills v. State, 98-02971
...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 So.2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). As we have said in the past, this type of order is generally incapable of being rendered--and indeed this one was not--and, i......
-
Henry's Office Supplies v. Henry, 98-4013.
...2d DCA 1994); Davenport v. State, 640 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); 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 So.2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). As stated in Parnell, a rubber-stamped "order" on the face of a documen......