STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
VICTOR MAURICE ROBINSON, 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 state appealed a trial court's grant of a new trial to the defendant in a sexual battery and kidnapping case. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant a new trial where the motion was filed outside the 10-day deadline under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.590(a), and the rule does not permit extensions of that deadline.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the motion for new trial because it was filed on August 10, 1981 (18 days after the verdict), outside the 10-day deadline that ended on August 3, 1981. The current Rule 3.590(a) does not permit extensions of the filing deadline as the former rule did, and the time limits are jurisdictional.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant a motion for new trial filed outside the time prescribed by rule.
[2] Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.590(a), a motion for new trial must be filed within 10 days after the rendition of the verdict.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The current rule does not specifically allow the trial court to extend the time for filing a motion for new trial as did the former rule.”
Establishes the critical distinction between the former and current rules regarding extension authority
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Robinson was charged with sexual battery and kidnapping to facilitate a felony. A jury found him guilty on July 23, 1981. Defense counsel re…
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 Timeliness Of Post-Trial Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
The state appeals an order granting the defendant a new trial. We reverse the order because we find that the the trial court was without jurisdiction to grant the motion for new trial.
Defendant was charged in a two count information with sexual battery and with kidnapping to facilitate a felony. Following a jury verdict of guilty as charged, rendered on July 23, 1981, defense counsel orally requested an extension within which to file post-trial motions. The trial judge granted the motion for extension of time, saying that he would like to have a written indication of when the motions would be filed. On August 4, 1981 defendant filed a written motion for extension of time, indicating that his post-trial motions would be filed no later than August 10, 1981. The trial court granted this motion, extending the time for filing post-trial motions to August 10, 1981. Defendant’s motion for new trial, filed on August 10, 1981 was subsequently granted by the trial court.
Rule 3.590(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, effective January 1, 1981, allows the filing of a motion for new trial 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 current rule does not specifically allow the trial court to extend the time for filing a motion for new trial as did the former rule. The tenth day after the rendition of the verdict was August 2,1981, a Sunday.
Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 3.040, Fla.R.Crim.P., defendant had until August 3, 1981, a Monday to timely 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 after the verdict, were jurisdictional. See State v. Farmer, 384 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Pittman v. State, 370 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. dismissed 375 So. 2d 911 (Fla.1979).
Furthermore, a trial court was without authority under the former Rule 3.590, Fla.R.Crim.P. to extend the motion period beyond 15 days from entry of the verdict. Lamberti v. Wainwright, 513 F. 2d 277 (5th Cir. 1975). We therefore find that the time limits enunciated under the current rule 3.590, Fla.R.Crim.P., effective January 1, 1981, are jurisdictional and that under said rule the trial court is without authority to extend the motion period beyond 10 days from rendition of the verdict.
Accordingly, since the motion for new trial was not filed within 10 days of the rendition of the verdict, the trial court was without jurisdiction to hear the motion. We therefore vacate the order granting defendant a new trial and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
LARRY G. SMITH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
State v. Bodden, 756 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…appellee’s untimely motion for a new trial in this case. See State v. Anton, 700 So. 2d 743, 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Clifton v. State, 697 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); State v. Snyder, 453 So. 2d 546, 546-47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); State v. Robinson, 417 So. 2d 760, 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The state, however, recognizes that defense counsel’s failure to timely file the motion for new trial does give rise to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by the appellee. Rather than remand this issue for the ap…
-
Crenshaw v. State, 490 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…relied heavily on “the unique situation” presented in that case, which arose when the trial court improperly extended the time in which to file a motion for new trial and then granted it. That action was reversed by this court in State v. Robinson, 417 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (Robinson I), on the ground that the motion was untimely filed. Therefore, the Robinson II court knew without benefit of further proceedings in the trial court that, but for counsel’s error, the motion would have been granted. Co…
-
Jovan Lamb v. State, 124 So. 3d 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…al after defense counsel filed an untimely but successful motion for new trial. The order granting new trial was reversed on appeal because the motion had been untimely, and Robinson was then adjudicated guilty. Id. at 475 (citing State v. Robinson, 417 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)). In the subsequent appeal, Robinson argued that a new trial was warranted in the interest of justice. Id. at 476. Although the victim had positively identified Robinson as the rapist, there was expert testimony casting doubt on…
Previewing 3 of 15 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)
- Lamberti v. Louie L. Wainwright, 513 F.2d 277 (5th Cir. 1975)
- State v. Farmer, 384 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Denard v. State, 410 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Pittman v. State, 370 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)