DAVID BRETT LEOPARD, 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.
David Brett Leopard appealed a trial court decision, but the appellate court discovered the trial court had not ruled on Leopard's motion for rehearing filed before the notice of appeal was filed. The court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal until the trial court ruled on the pending motion, and certified six questions of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court regarding the procedural implications of filing a notice of appeal while a post-trial motion remains undecided.
The court held it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the trial court had not ruled on the pending motion for rehearing. The notice of appeal remains in a state of limbo until the trial court rules on the motion, at which point jurisdiction will vest in the appellate court. Leopard was directed to inform the court within 30 days whether the trial court had ruled on the motion.
[1] A notice of appeal filed before a ruling on a post-trial motion is premature and does not vest jurisdiction in the appellate court until the motion is decided.
[2] An appellate court may require a party to inform it whether a post-trial motion has been ruled upon and to supplement the record with any such ruling.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“If that is so, this court would not have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal and the notice of appeal would hang "somewhere in limbo" until such time as the trial court effectuates rendition by ruling on the motion for rehearing.”
Establishes the core jurisdictional principle that appellate courts lack jurisdiction when a notice of appeal is filed before a post-trial motion is ruled upon.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeopard filed a motion for rehearing on March 22, 1985. He subsequently filed a notice of appeal before the trial court had ruled on that motion for r…
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 Premature Notice Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
[*860] BARFIELD, Judge.
The record indicates that the trial court did not rule upon the motion for rehearing filed March 22, 1985 prior to the filing of the notice of appeal. If that is so, this court would not have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal and the notice of appeal would hang “somewhere in limbo” until such time as the trial court effectuates rendition by ruling on the motion for rehearing. See Park v. Bayview Village Condominium Association, 468 So. 2d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), in which the court relied upon Williams v. State, 324 So. 2d 74 (Fla.1975). Appellant is directed to inform this court within thirty (30) days whether the trial court has ruled on the motion for rehearing, and to supplement the record with any such ruling. When this court receives notice that the trial court has ruled upon the motion, the notice of appeal shall mature and vest jurisdiction in this court.
We certify to the Florida Supreme Court, as a matter of great public importance, the following questions:
1. Are the appellate courts of this state bound by what appears to be dictum in Williams v. State, 324 So. 2d 74, 79-80 (Fla.1975), to the effect that notices of appeal filed after written judgment is filed for recording, but before a post-trial motion is decided, are premature, but may not be dismissed on that ground?
2. If so, does the Williams rule apply even in the case where the post-trial motion was filed by the appellant, or may the appellate court treat such motions as having been abandoned by the action of filing the notice of appeal, Allen v. Town of Largo, 39 So. 2d 549 (Fla.1949)?
3. If the Williams rule would apply in such situations, are the appellate courts required to search the record in each case for evidence that such a post-trial motion has been filed and has not been ruled upon?
4. If the appellate court is required to search the record for undecided post-trial motions, do the parties have an obligation to bring such motions to the attention of the appellate court and/or to ensure that such motions are included in the record on appeal?
5. If the Williams rule places a notice of appeal in a state of “limbo” until the trial court rules upon the post-trial motion(s), may the appellate court limit the duration of this “limbo” by appropriate order, or is the “limbo” of possibly infinite duration?
6. If the appellate courts may not curtail the “limbo” in which the notices of appeal are placed in such circumstances, what procedure should be used to handle those case files until such time as the notices of appeal mature?
SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Forfeiture OF $104 v. Metro Dade Police Dep't, 589 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 1991)…g is pending in the trial court constitutes abandonment of the motion for rehearing because the notice of appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction. The district court expressly recognized that its holding was in conflict with Leopard v. State, 489 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Lloyd v. Harrison, 489 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Hathcock v. State, 492 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); and Park v. Bayview Village Condominium Association, 468 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). We find conflict1 and resolv…
-
Leopard v. State, 491 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
-
In re Forfeiture OF $104 v. Metro Dade Police Dep't, 578 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…on other grounds, 491 U.S. 524, 109 S.Ct. 2603, 105 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) (post-trial motions are abandoned when filed simultaneously with notice of appeal). We indicate our disagreement with the cases that hold to the contrary. E.g., Leopard v. State, 489 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Lloyd v. Harrison, 489 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Hathcock v. State, 492 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Park v. Bayview Village Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 468 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Motion denied.5,6 .The entire…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 324 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1975)
- Allen v. Town of Largo, 39 So.2d 549 (Fla. 1949)
- Pascal v. Pascal, 468 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)