CLIFFORD WALKER, 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.
Walker appealed his criminal conviction and moved to strike the State's cross appeal on jurisdictional grounds, arguing the State's notice of cross appeal was untimely. The Florida First District Court of Appeal held that the filing deadline for a state's notice of cross appeal in a criminal case is procedural rather than jurisdictional, and therefore an untimely filing does not divest the court of jurisdiction.
The court held that the filing period for a notice of cross appeal by the state in a criminal case is procedural rather than jurisdictional. The appellate court acquires jurisdiction over the entire cause upon the timely filing of the defendant's initial notice of appeal, and therefore an untimely state cross appeal does not affect the court's jurisdiction.
[1] The filing period for a notice of cross appeal by the state in a criminal case is procedural, not jurisdictional.
[2] Jurisdiction over a cause is acquired by the appellate court upon the timely filing of the initial notice of appeal.
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“We hold that the filing period for a notice of cross appeal by the state in a criminal case is procedural rather than jurisdictional. Jurisdiction over the cause is acquired by the appellate court upon the timely filing of the notice of appeal.”
The court's central holding distinguishing procedural from jurisdictional requirements and establishing when appellate jurisdiction attaches.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalker appealed his judgment of conviction. The State filed a notice of cross appeal, which Walker contended was filed outside the 10-day deadline pre…
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 Appellate Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause comes before us on appellant’s motion to strike the State’s notice of cross appeal. Appellant contends that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the cross appeal because the notice of cross appeal was not filed within 10 days of service of the notice of appeal.
Rule 9.140(c)(1)(H), Fla.R.App.P., permits the State to appeal a ruling on a question of law when a defendant appeals his judgment of conviction. Rule 9.140(c)(2), Fla.R. App.P., provides that in an appeal taken pursuant to Rule 9.140(c)(1)(H), the State’s notice of appeal shall be filed within 10 days of service of defendant’s notice of appeal. Appellant argues that the language of the rule requiring the notice of cross appeal to be “filed”, as opposed to “served”, is evidence that the requirement is jurisdictional, like the filing of the notice of appeal. In support of this position, appellant cites to Agrico Chemical Co. v. Department of Environmental Regula tion, 380 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1980), which, in holding that service of a notice of cross appeal pursuant to Rule 9.110(g), Fla. R.App.P., is not jurisdictional, appeared to place some significance on the fact that service was required rather than filing.
We do not agree with appellant that the use of the term “file” rather than “serve” has any jurisdictional import. The mere use of one term or the other does not, in and of itself, determine whether a requirement is procedural or jurisdictional in nature. Under the former rules, a cross appeal was taken by “filing” cross assignments of error, yet the timely filing of the cross assignments of error was not deemed jurisdictional. See Agrico Chemical Co., supra; Brickell Bay Condominium Association v. Forte, 379 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980). Further, this court has held that the timely “filing” of a notice of cross appeal in a workers’ compensation case is not jurisdictional. County Sanitation v. Ross, 389 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
We hold that the filing period for a notice of cross appeal by the state in a criminal case is procedural rather than jurisdictional. Jurisdiction over the cause is acquired by the appellate court upon the timely filing of the notice of appeal. See, e.g., Hollywood v. Clark, 153 Fla. 501, 15 So. 2d 175 (1943). Because the court gains jurisdiction over the entire cause at the time the notice of appeal is filed, neither the timely filing of a notice of cross appeal, nor the failure to timely file such a notice will affect the jurisdiction of the appellate court. As the Third District Court of Appeal succinctly stated:
[SJince the jurisdiction of the appellate court is invoked by the filing of the initial notice of appeal, ... the notice of cross-appeal is properly regarded as no more than a subsequent procedural step in the appellate process.
Brickell Bay Condominium Association, 379 So. 2d at 1335.
In holding that the filing of a notice of cross appeal under 9.140(c)(2) is not jurisdictional, we wish to emphasize that is a procedural requirement, and while the.filing period may be extended for good cause, this does not mean the period will be extended automatically or in every case. In most cases, the court will expect the time limits for filing to be complied with. However, when defendant will not suffer prejudice or be deprived of adequate notice, the court may, in its sound discretion, allow the state to file an untimely notice of cross appeal.
In this case, appellant does not allege and the court does not find that appellant has been prejudiced by the untimely filing of the notice of cross appeal. Therefore, appellant’s motion to strike the notice of cross appeal is denied.
ERVIN, C.J., and WENTWORTH and NIMMONS, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Wiccan Religious Coop. OF Fla., Inc. v. Zingale, 898 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…an unfavorable portion of a final judgment substantially favorable to the ap-pellee. See Smeaton v. Smeaton, 678 So. 2d 501, 501 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). However, this rule is procedural, not jurisdictional, and can be waived. See Walker v. State, 457 So. 2d 1136, 1137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (ruling that “[bjecause the court gains jurisdiction over the entire cause at the time the notice of appeal is filed, neither the timely filing of a notice of cross appeal, nor the failure to timely file such a notice will…1 / 2
-
Larry v. State, 593 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…. Appellee moves for leave to file a notice of cross appeal fourteen months after the appellant filed the notice of appeal. We deny the motion without prejudice to serve an amended motion which sets forth good cause as required by Walker v. State, 457 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The filing period for a notice of cross appeal by the state in a criminal case is procedural rather than jurisdictional. The filing period may be extended for good cause where the defendant will not suffer prejudice or be depr…
-
Cornerstone Dev. Grp., Inc. v. Haraway, 1 So. 3d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…ysor v. Raysor, 706 So. 2d 400, 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). This dismissal is without prejudice to the appellant’s right to file a motion for leave to permit late filing of notice of cross appeal in appellate case number 1D08-4291. See Walker v. State, 457 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Brickell Bay Club Condo. Ass’n v. Forte, 379 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Cf, Sampson v. Sampson, 566 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (dismissing cross appeal where there was no motion for leave of court to permit the late fil…
Authorities Cited
- Tomazin v. Gessner, 153 Fla. 501 (Fla. 1943)
- Brickell BAY Club Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Forte, 379 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Agrico Chem. Co. v. Dep't OF Env't Reg., 380 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Cnty. Sanitation & Commercial Union Assurance Cos. v. Ross, 389 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)