REGINALD L. SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida District Court of Appeal addresses whether a notice of appeal limited to the adjudication of guilt permits appellate review of alleged sentencing errors. The court holds that sentencing errors may be reviewed despite the notice of appeal's silence on sentencing, following the Supreme Court's decision in Noble v. State.
An appeal from an adjudication of guilt permits the appellate court to consider alleged sentencing errors despite the absence of language in the notice of appeal indicating intent to appeal the sentence, provided the issue is clearly raised in the appellate proceedings and no prejudice is shown by the State.
[1] A notice of appeal filed after a jury verdict but before the entry of judgment matures and vests jurisdiction in the appellate court upon the entry of judgment.
[2] An appeal from an adjudication of guilt permits an appellate court to consider alleged sentencing errors even if the notice of appeal does not specifically mention the se…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“an appeal from an adjudication of guilt permitted the appellate court to consider alleged sentencing errors despite the absence of any language in the notice of appeal indicating that the appellant intended to appeal the sentence, where the issue was clearly raised in the appellate proceedings and no prejudice was shown by the State”
States the holding from Noble v. State that governs whether sentencing errors can be reviewed on an appeal that does not explicitly mention the sentence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith filed a notice of appeal after the jury verdict of guilty but before entry of judgment. The notice of appeal specifically referenced 'the final …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sentencing Error cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
The State moves to dismiss this appeal contending that the issues on appeal were not preserved for appellate review because the sentence is not appealed, only the adjudication of guilt.
The notice of appeal was filed after the jury verdict of guilty, but before the entry of the judgment, but it appealed “the final judgment adjudicating guilt.” Thus, cases such as Smith v. State, 395 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), where only the verdict was appealed, are inapposite. The State concedes that under Williams v. State, 324 So. 2d 74 (Fla.1975), the notice of appeal remains in a state of limbo until the judgment is rendered, at which time the notice of appeal matures and vests jurisdiction in the appellate court. Id. at 79. However, the State asserts that a notice of appeal is only effective to raise matters which occur prior to the time the notice is filed (or here, prior to its becoming effective), Velickovich v. Ricci, 391 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), and sentencing occurs after the judgment of guilt is entered. Therefore, says the State, alleged sentencing errors cannot be raised here without a new or amended no tice of appeal specifically addressed to the sentence.
In Noble v. State, 353 So. 2d 819 (Fla.1977), the Supreme Court addressed this same issue1 and held that an appeal from an adjudication of guilt permitted the appellate court to consider alleged sentencing errors despite the absence of any language in the notice of appeal indicating that the appellant intended to appeal the sentence, where the issue was clearly raised in the appellate proceedings and no prejudice was shown by the State. The State’s response here alleges no prejudice but relies simply on the fact that the notice of appeal does not refer to the sentence. Under Noble, we are compelled to disagree. See Abraham v. State, 382 So. 2d 382 (Fla.3d DCA 1980).
The motion to dismiss is DENIED.
DAUKSCH, C. J., and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., J., concur. . The Supreme Court found conflict between the decision of Noble v. State, 338 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) and State ex rel. Poe v. Allen, 196 So. 2d 745 (Fla.1967).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 324 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1975)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Alfred Gordon POE & Doris v. Poe, 196 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 1967)
- Momcilo Velickovich and Zorica Velickovich v. Ricci, 391 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Dewayne F. Noble, III v. State, 353 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1977)
- Dewayne Frank Noble, III v. State, 338 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Abraham v. State, 382 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Smith v. State, 395 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)