STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MARK CHRISTIAN MOORE, 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.
Florida's appeal of a suppression motion ruling is not yet appealable because the trial court's order granting the motion lacks proper documentation. The court temporarily relinquishes jurisdiction and gives the trial court 20 days to issue a proper written, signed, and filed order that complies with appellate procedure rules.
The appeal is not yet appealable because the order has not been properly rendered. An order is not appealable until it is reduced to writing, signed, and filed with the clerk. The stamped imprint does not satisfy these requirements because it is undated and has no discernible filing date, making it impossible to determine whether any appeal was timely filed.
[1] An order is not appealable until it is reduced to writing, signed, and filed with the clerk of the lower court.
[2] An oral pronouncement of a ruling and a stamped order do not satisfy the rendition rule for appealability.
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“The case law is clear that an order is not appealable until it is rendered, and rendition does not occur until the order is reduced to writing, signed, and filed with the clerk of the lower court.”
Establishes the fundamental rendition rule that must be satisfied before an order becomes appealable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Moore filed a motion to suppress on November 10, 1988, which was heard and orally granted on November 14, 1988. The only documentation of th…
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 Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
We temporarily relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court and grant the state twenty days to obtain an appealable order. In this appeal by the state, this court has been presented with a record containing the defendant’s written motion to suppress. In the margin of that motion appears the following rubber stamp imprint:
MOTION HEARD, CONSIDERED AND _ EXCEPTION NOTED THIS _!_19_YOU ARE ADVISED THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO APPEAL THIS ORDER WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THIS ORDER IS FILED.
Judge
After the word “and” the word “Granted” is hand printed. There is no entry in the second blank. After “19” is printed “88.” The blank provided for the judge’s signature contains two initials which are indecipherable. The motion to suppress was filed November 10, 1988, and the transcript of the hearing on the motion indicates the motion was heard and orally granted on November 14, 1988. Other than the above imprint, no written order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress appears in the record. The state files this appeal from the trial court’s granting of the motion to suppress.
The case law is clear that an order is not appealable until it is rendered, and rendition does not occur until the order is reduced to writing, signed, and filed with the clerk of the lower court. Billie v. State, 478 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(g). In State v. Green, 527 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), this court found that the oral pronouncement of the trial court denying a motion for rehearing and the stamped order denying rehearing did not satisfy the rendition rule. Based on that finding, this court held that the notice of appeal was timely filed from the date of the written order although it would not be timely from the date of the stamped order. In Green, this court was careful to point out that it was not condemning the practice of stamping orders as a whole, but merely in the instances where the orders must establish a point from which critical time periods are measured.
That language in Green is quite applicable here. Because the stamped order in this instance is not dated and the only filing date appearing on the document refers to the date that the motion was filed, there is no means of discerning the filing date of the order, which is essential in determining whether the state’s appeal was timely filed (within 15 days of the filing of the suppression order). At least in Green the stamped order was signed and dated. As established before, that is not the situation in this case.
If the state does not provide this court with an appealable order in accordance with this decision within twenty days, this appeal shall be dismissed.
PRANK, A.C.J., and PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Sullivan, 640 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…n the face of a motion. However, we have also made it clear that such an order should not be used when it is essential to fix a point from which crucial time periods are to be calculated for purposes of rendition under rule 9.020(g). State v. Moore, 563 So. 2d 115, 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). In this ease, we again find that the trial court’s oral pronouncement and stamped order do not satisfy the requirements of rendition. State v. Green, 527 So. 2d 941, 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). As noted, we have already provide…
-
Parnell v. State, 642 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…appeal within thirty days, even though the order did not comply with rule 3.850(g). Appellate courts have previously discouraged the use of rubber stamps to rule upon such motions. Smith v. State, 582 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); State v. Moore, 563 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); State v. Green, 527 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). An order is rendered when it is reduced to writing, signed, and filed with the clerk of the trial court. A rubber-stamped order on a document that has already been filed is, at b…
-
Smith v. State, 582 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…cord.1 Such similarly signed and dated stamped orders, placed on top of pleadings previously filed, have been held insufficient to invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction. See Johnson v. State, 573 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); State v. Moore, 563 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and remand this cause to the trial court with directions to enter within twenty days an order in a form which is properly appealable. In order to expedite this cause and conserve judicial ener…
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
- State v. Green, 527 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)