STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWIN LASLEY AND ROBERT BUCHANAN, APPELLEES
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 appeals an order vacating defendants' guilty pleas in a DUI case. The appellees moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely, but the court held that the thirty-day appeal window under civil appellate rules applied rather than the fifteen-day window for criminal appeals, and that the state has standing to appeal adverse postconviction orders.
The appeal is timely. Appeals from final orders under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 are civil in nature and collateral to the criminal prosecution, thus governed by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(b), which affords thirty days to file a notice of appeal rather than the fifteen-day window for criminal appeals under rule 9.140(c)(2). The state has standing to appeal adverse final orders in postconviction proceedings, just as defendants do.
[1] An appeal from an order entered on a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 is considered civil in nature and collateral to the criminal prosecution.
[2] An action under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 is treated similarly to a habeas corpus proceeding for purposes of appeal.
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“Like a habeas corpus proceeding an action under rule 3.850 is considered civil in nature and collateral to the criminal prosecution which resulted in the judgment of conviction, notwithstanding the inclusion of rule 3.850 within the criminal rules.”
Establishes that 3.850 motions are civil proceedings despite being in the criminal rules, triggering civil appellate procedure
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees Lasley and Buchanan entered pleas of no contest to driving under the influence, were adjudged guilty, and were sentenced. On November 3, 198…
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 Motion To Dismiss Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
per CURIAM.
Appellees have moved to dismiss this appeal as untimely filed. For the reasons set forth herein we deny the motion to dismiss.
Both appellees entered pleas of no contest to driving under the influence of alcohol and were adjudged guilty and sentenced. On November 3, 1986, the county court granted appellees’ motions to vacate and permitted them to withdraw those pleas. The state filed its notice of appeal December 2, 1986. The trial court previously had entered an order certifying that this case involves a question of great public importance, and we accepted jurisdiction. Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(b)(4) and 9.160.
Appellees reason that the appeal is untimely because Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(2) requires the state to file its notice of appeal within fifteen days of rendition of the order to be reviewed; rule 9.160(b) specifically provides that these discretionary proceedings are commenced just as if the appeal were being taken to the circuit court. Ordinarily this might be so. However, rule 9.140 governs appeal proceedings in criminal cases only. The present appeal is from a final order under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which specifically provides that “[a]n appeal may be taken to the appropriate appellate court from the order entered upon the motion as from a final judgment on application for writ of habeas corpus.” Like a habeas corpus proceeding an action under rule 3.850 is considered civil in nature and collateral to the criminal prosecution which resulted in the judgment of conviction, notwithstanding the inclusion of rule 3.850 within the criminal rules. Green v. State, 280 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Tolar v. State, 196 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); Lett v. State, 195 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(b), not 9.140(c)(2), controls, and affords the prospective appellant thirty days to file his notice of appeal. The state filed its notice within these time limits.
Appellees also argue that the order under review is not appealable by the state. Again we disagree. The state, like the defendant, is authorized to take an appeal from an adverse final order in postconviction proceedings. State v. White, 470 So. 2d 1377 (Fla.1985); § 924.07(6) Fla.Stat. (1985).
Motion denied.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donneco King v. State, 870 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…at “[t]he movant may file a motion for rehearing of any order denying a motion under this rule within 15 days of the date of service of the order.” Although the State is allowed to appeal an order granting postconviction relief, see State v. Lasley, 507 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), the State did not do so in this case. Nor does rule 3.850 contain a provision allowing the trial court to order rehearing on its own initiative. Cf Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530(d) (“Not later than 10 days after entry of judgment or with…
-
Rozier v. State, 603 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…s. The civil rule is pertinent because post-conviction collateral remedies such as those initiated under rule 3.850 are in the nature of independent collateral civil actions. See State v. White, 470 So. 2d 1377, 1378 (Fla.1985). In State v. Lasley, 507 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), the court noted that, “[l]ike a habeas corpus proceeding an action under rule 3.850 is considered civil in nature and collateral to the criminal prosecution which resulted in the judgment of conviction, notwithstanding the inclus…
-
State v. Lasley, 513 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…n relief without any showing of prejudice. Shortly following the state’s filing of its notice of appeal, Lasley and Buchanan attacked the timeliness of the notice. In an opinion dated May 15,1987, we denied their motion to dismiss. State v. Lasley, 507 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). We determined that the state’s appeal is governed by the 30 day period prescribed in rule 9.110(b) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, and not the 15 day period imposed upon the state in rule 9.140(c)(2). The considerati…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tolar v. State, 196 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- State v. Beauford White, 470 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1985)
- Green v. State, 280 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Lett v. State, 195 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)