EDWARD LAMB, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
Edward Lamb was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction after striking the bill of exceptions for being filed beyond the sixty-day deadline set by the trial court, leaving only two assignments of error that lacked sufficient record support.
The bill of exceptions was untimely filed and therefore stricken as a nullity. Only two assignments of error had any basis in the record proper: the motion to quash the indictment (expressly abandoned) and the motion in arrest of judgment (not adequately argued). No fatal error appeared on the face of the record.
“The time allowed the defendant by the order above quoted in which to file his bill of exceptions was sixty days from the adjournment of the term.”
Establishes the applicable rule for calculating the deadline for filing a bill of exceptions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdward Lamb was convicted of murder in the first degree in the Circuit Court for Manatee County and sentenced to capital punishment. The trial court o…
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 Quash Indictment cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of murder in the first degree in the Circuit Court for Manatee county and took writ of error to the judgment of the court -sentencing him to capital punishment.
The Attorney-General for the State moves to strike the bill of exceptions from the transcript on the grounds that “it was not settled nor presented for settlement within the time allowed by the court in its special order for settlement thereof after adjournment.”
In the transcript following the sentence of Edward Lamb to capital punishment is this record entry: “the defendant by counsel gave notice of an appeal of said cause to the Supreme Court of the State of Florida, and is allowed sixty days in which to-file his bill of exceptions, and all other pleas and complaints in -said court not disposed of are hereby continued and the court stands adjourned. Done and ordered in open court this the 29th day of January, A. D. 1904, at Braidentown, Florida, W. S. Bullock, Judge.”
The bill of exceptions contains the following: “Said defendant by his counsel aforesaid did on the 29th day of April, 1904, after the expiration of the term of said court aforesaid by virtue of a special -order herein made proposes this his bill of exceptions to the said opinions and decisions of the said judge and requests him to sign the same according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, which is done this the 16 day of May, A. D. 1904. W. S. Bullock, Judge.”
The time allowed the defendant by the order above quoted in which to file his bill of exceptions was sixty days from the adjournment of the term. Lewis v. Meginniss, 25 Fla. 589, 6 South. Rep. 169. The record shows the court adojourned January 29th, 1904, and the bill of exceptions recites that it was presented to the judge on April 29th, 1904, which was more than sixty days from the adjournment of the court. As the bill of exceptions was not presented to the judge within the time allowed by the order of the court it is a nullity and the motion to strike it is granted. Washington v. State, 48 Fla. 62, 31 South. Rep. 573.
The bill of exceptions having been stricken none of the assignments of error can be considered except those which have a basis in the record proper. Of these there are only two: the second, which is that the court erred in denying a motion to quash the indictment; and the ninth, -which is that the court erred in denying a. motion in arrest of judgment.
The second assignment of error is expressly abandoned in the brief for the plaintiff in error. The ninth assignment of error is not argued except by reference to other assignments of error which have no basis in the record proper. The grounds of the motion in arrest of judgment have no predicate in the record proper and therefore can not be considered here.
No fatal error appears on the face of the record and the judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Cockrell, J., concur. Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Merritt, 86 Fla. 164 (Fla. 1923)…lement and signing of a bill of exceptions, therefore what occurred in pais at the hearing of this cause is not properly nor authoritatively nor legally certified to this court. See Washington v. State, 48 Fla. 62, 37 South. Rep. 573; Lamb v. State, 50 Fla. 106, 38 South. Rep. 906; Hainlin v. Budge, 56 Fla. 342, 47 South. Rep. 825; Bardin v. L’Engle, 13 Fla. 571; Webster v. Barnett, 17 Fla. 272; Potsdamer v. State of Florida, 17 Fla. 895; Bush v. State, 21 Fla. 569; Myrick v. Merritt, 21 Fla. 799; Rehfield…
-
Cross v. State, 89 Fla. 212 (Fla. 1925)…n that no reason, principle or citation is given in support of them. Therefore, they will not be sustained as no glaring error appears which requires no argument to demonstrate it. See Thomas v. State, 36 Fla. 109, 18 South. Rep. 331; Lamb v. State, 50 Fla. 106, 38 South. Rep. 906; Smith v. State, 65 Fla. 56, 61 South. Rep. 120. - The court charged the jury that in “cases in which a specific or particular intent is an essential or constituent element of the offense, as it is in murder of the first degree,…
-
Denmark v. State, 116 So. 757 (Fla. 1928)…te, 62 Fla. 20, 57 So. 2d Rep. 240; Smith v. State, 65 Fla. 56, 61 So. 2d Rep. 120; Lambright v. State,34 Fla. 564, 16 So. 2d Rep. 582; Holland v. State, 39 Fla. 178, 22 South Rep. 298; Mathis v. State, 45 Fla. 46, 34 So. 2d Rep. 287; Lamb v. State, 50 Fla. 106, 38 South Rep. 906; Cross v. State, 89 Fla. 212, 103 So. 2d Rep. 636; Davis v. State,87 Fla. 505, 100 So. 2d Rep. 739. The assignments of error in behalf of Berta Hall may likewise be treated as abandoned by strictly applying the rule because the b…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lewis v. Meginniss, 25 Fla. 589 (Fla. 1889)
- Emmett Washington v. State, 48 Fla. 62 (Fla. 1904)