State v. Sullivan, 92-04696
| Decision Date | 22 April 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-04696,92-04696 |
| Citation | 640 So.2d 77 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D892 STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Elizabeth SULLIVAN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Donna Provonsha-Lentz, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
Stevan T. Northcutt of Levine, Hirsch, Segall & Northcutt, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.
The state appeals the trial court's order granting the appellee's motion to withdraw her pleas of guilty and to vacate her sentences. We dismiss the appeal.
The appellee filed her motion on October 9, 1992. On November 20, 1992, the trial court conducted a hearing on the motion and orally granted it. At some point, the trial court used a standard order stamped on the margin of the motion to reduce its ruling to writing. This order reflects that the motion was granted on November 20, 1992, and contains the trial court's initials. The record reflects that this stamped order was never rendered by filing it with the clerk as required by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(g). No other written order was entered.
The state filed its notice of appeal on December 2, 1992. The notice was specifically directed to the order of the trial court "rendered on the record on the 20th day of November, 1992."
Based on a preliminary review of the record, we found sua sponte that the order which the state sought to appeal was a nonappealable order. We, therefore, entered an order on February 4, 1994, relinquishing jurisdiction to the trial court for a period of thirty days for the entry of a proper appealable order. We also directed the state to supplement the record with a certified copy of the order. There was no compliance with our order.
In the past, this court has been careful to point out that we do not discourage the use of a short form order stamped on the face of a motion. However, we have also made it clear that such an order should not be used when it is essential to fix a point from which crucial time periods are to be calculated for purposes of rendition under rule 9.020(g). State v. Moore, 563 So.2d 115, 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). In this case, we again find that the trial court's oral pronouncement and stamped order do not satisfy the requirements of rendition. State v. Green, 527 So.2d 941, 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
As noted, we have already provided an opportunity to correct this jurisdictional deficiency, and it was not corrected. Accordingly, we have no other alternative but to dismiss this appeal. 1 See Moore.
In closing, we again remind counsel that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atrium Med. Corp. v. MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC
... ... available." Huffman v. State, 813 So.2d 10, 11 ... (Fla. 2000). Absent entry of such a final, appealable order, ... appealable order."); see also State v ... Sullivan, 640 So.2d 77, 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) ("If ... a trial court fails or refuses to enter a ... ...
-
Sills v. State, 98-02971
...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 So.2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA As we have said in the past, this type of order is generally incapable of being......
-
Suleiman v. State, 2D03-1863.
...2d DCA 1997); Turner v. State, 667 So.2d 882 (Fla. 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 opinio......
-
Parnell v. State, 94-01417
...to establish that the order has ever been rendered. See Johnson v. State, 573 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); cf. State v. Sullivan, 640 So.2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (dismissing appeal from "order" that trial court rubber-stamped on face of motion where record did not reveal that such "order......