HENRY JAMES DENARD, A/K/A HENRY LOWE, 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.
A criminal defendant filed a notice of appeal thirty-two days after entry of the corrected judgment and sentence, exceeding the thirty-day deadline required by Florida appellate rules. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the untimely motion for new trial did not toll the time for filing the notice of appeal.
An untimely motion for new trial does not toll or delay rendition of final judgment for purposes of the thirty-day deadline to file a notice of appeal. The court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal when the notice of appeal is filed outside the thirty-day window, regardless of a trial judge's order attempting to delay rendition pending disposition of an untimely motion for new trial.
[1] A notice of appeal in a criminal case must be filed between the rendition of the final judgment and thirty days following the entry of a written order imposing sentence.
[2] A motion for new trial or in arrest of judgment must be made within 10 days after the rendition of the verdict or the finding of the court.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A defendant must file a notice of appeal in a criminal case between rendition of the final judgment and thirty days following the entry of a written order imposing sentence.”
Establishes the mandatory time deadline for filing a notice of appeal in criminal cases under Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(b)(2)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDenard was convicted after a verdict rendered on January 20, 1981. He filed a motion for new trial and a motion in arrest of judgment on February 2, w…
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 Rendition Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
A defendant must file a notice of appeal in a criminal case between rendition of the final judgment and thirty days following the entry of a written order imposing sentence. Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(b)(2). The notice of appeal in this case was filed on June 10, 1981, thirty-two days after the corrected judgment and sentence and approximately two and one-half months after the original judgment and sentence, and was, accordingly, not timely filed.
Effective January 1, 1981, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.590 was amended to provide that motions for new trial or in arrest of judgment “may be made within 10 days after the rendition of the verdict or the finding of the court.” In re Rules of Criminal Procedure, 389 So. 2d 610 (Fla.1980). The verdict in this cause was rendered on January 20, 1981. The tenth day thereafter was January 30, a Friday. Both appellant’s motion for new trial and his motion in arrest of judgment were filed on February 2, thirteen days after rendition of verdict. Since the motion for new trial was not timely, it was insufficient to delay rendition for purposes of filing a notice of appeal. Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(g). Therefore, the untimely motion for a new trial did not cause the rendition of the final judgment to be postponed beyond the original time limitation of thirty days following entry of the written order imposing sentence. This court has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal and the trial judge’s order purporting to delay rendition of the judgment and sentence until disposition of the motion for a new trial is ineffective to accomplish that purpose and to vest this court with jurisdiction. Accordingly, this appeal is
DISMISSED.
DAUKSCH, C. J., and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Robinson, 417 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…file a motion for new trial. However, defendant’s motion for new trial was not filed until August 10, 1981, the eighteenth day after the rendition of the verdict. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for new trial was untimely filed. See Denard v. State, 410 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The time limits of former Rule 3.590(a), Fla.R.Crim.P., which permitted the filing of a motion for new trial or in arrest of judgment within four days after the verdict in a jury trial, or by leave of court within 15 days afte…
-
Richardson v. State, 540 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…endant’s motion was not filed until May 24, one day late. Because it was not timely, the motion for new trial did not delay rendition of the judgment and sentence for purposes of filing a notice of appeal. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(g); Denard v. State, 410 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The notice of appeal, filed August 11, was not filed within the 30 day period following the rendition of the judgment and sentence and thus this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal. APPEAL DISMISSED. DAUKSCH and COWART…
-
Brady v. State, 518 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…DCA 1970). Even if these motions were available, they were not filed within the time provided by the rules and therefore they should not have been considered by the trial court. State v. Robinson, 417 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Denard v. State, 410 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Finally, as to the right to raise a constitutional issue for the first time on appeal, there can be no question that a constitutional infirmity, other than those constituting fundamental error, may be waived by failure to timel…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Fla. Bar. in re Rules of Crim. Procedure, 389 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1980)