TIMOTHY LEON HILL, 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.
In this appellate procedural matter, the Florida District Court of Appeal addresses the appellee's motions seeking clarification of an earlier order striking an unauthorized appendix from the answer brief. The court reaffirms its prior ruling denying the appendix and the motion to supplement the record, rejecting the appellee's assertion that the documents were introduced as exhibits below.
The May 7, 1985 order implicitly denied the motion to supplement the record by finding the appendix was unauthorized. Documents cannot be added to the appellate record based merely on counsel's assertions; they must have been properly admitted into evidence in the trial court, which must be substantiated by reference to the file and transcript.
[1] An appellate court's order granting a motion to strike an appendix implicitly denies a motion to supplement the record with the contents of that appendix.
[2] Documents not part of the original record before an appellate court cannot be included in an appendix to a brief.
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“Although not including the specific words 'appellee's motion to supplement the record is denied', the May 7, 1985, order explicitly found that the appendix was unauthorized, thereby implicitly denying the motion to supplement the record with the documents contained in that appendix.”
Establishes that an implicit denial can be found in an order even without explicit language denying the motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee included documents in an appendix to its answer brief that were not part of the record before the appellate court. Appellant moved to strike …
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 Supplementing The Record cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION TO CLARIFY/MOTION TO TOLL TIME/MOTION TO RULE/MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE
PER CURIAM.
On April 8, 1985, appellant filed a motion to strike the appendix to appellee’s answer brief on the ground that it contained documents not part of the record before this court. A show cause order was entered and appellee responded, asserting, among other things that the documents in question were introduced as exhibits in the lower court. Therefore, appellee maintained they were properly included in the appendix, and moved alternatively to supplement the record with the documents.
On May 7, 1985, the following order was entered by this court:
Appellant’s motion to strike appendix to appellee’s answer brief is granted. Ap-pellee shall file an amended brief omitting the unauthorized appendix and any references thereto within five days of the date of this order, [emphasis supplied]
Appellee has filed the present motion in which counsel states that the May 7 order failed to rule on the motion to supplement the record • and in which counsel again states that the documents were admitted as exhibits in the proceedings below. Appel-lee’s assertions are not well taken.
Although not including the specific words “appellee’s motion to supplement the record is denied”, the May 7, 1985, order explicitly found that the appendix was unauthorized, thereby implicitly denying the motion to supplement the record with the documents contained in that ap pendix. Appellant insists that the documents were introduced as exhibits below but fails to substantiate the proposition in any manner. In addition, we have ourselves examined the file and the transcript and find no reference to the admission of these documents into evidence below. Counsel for appellee should not have to be told that the appellate courts do not create records, nor do statements of counsel serve to create a record. While the documents may have been subject to judicial notice below, the place for securing such notice is in the trial court. See Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners v. Darsey, 424 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
For the foregoing reasons, all of appel-lee’s motions filed to date in this cause are denied.
BOOTH, WIGGINTON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hill v. State, 486 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
Authorities Cited
- Hillsborough Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. Pub. Emps. Relations Comm'n & Hillsborough Cnty. Governmental Emps. Ass'n, Inc., 424 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)