STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
JOHN WATERMAN, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rules Of Appellate Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(1)(B) the state has ap pealed the trial court’s pretrial order partially suppressing seized evidence. The defendant has cross-appealed that aspect of the order denying his motion to suppress all of the seized evidence.
The state seeks to dismiss the cross-appeal on the ground that it is not authorized by the appellate rules. Several district courts have held that there is no jurisdiction to entertain a cross-appeal when the order in question could not have been independently appealed by the defendant. See State v. Williams, 444 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Willits, 413 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); State v. Clark, 384 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 392 So. 2d 1372 (Fla.1980). We agree, however, with the fifth district’s view stated in State v. McAdams, 559 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), that a notice of cross-appeal is not jurisdictional. Hence, we, too, hold that a cross-appeal in the present circumstance is not foreclosed.
Thus, we deny the state’s motion to dismiss the cross-appeal, but we expressly note that our ruling permitting the cross-appeal is confined to matters arising wholly out of the order that is under review in the direct appeal.
FRANK, A.C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lopez v. State, 638 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1994)…GRIMES, Chief Judge. We review State v. Lopez, 630 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), in which the court certified that its decision was in conflict with State v. McAdams, 559 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), and State v. Waterman, 613 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution. Lopez was charged with murder and other crimes. He moved to suppress statements made to law enforcement officers over a period of two days. His m…
-
State v. Lopez, 630 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…444 So. 2d 434, 438 n. 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Roberts, 415 So. 2d 796 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We certify, however, that this decision is in conflict with State v. McAdams, 559 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (en banc), and State v. Waterman, 613 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), so as to permit further review of this decision by the Florida Supreme Court pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution. Upon the defendant’s representation that such review will be sought, we stay the sta…
-
State v. Vitale, 118 So. 3d 853 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…nd denied in part a motion to suppress different items of evidence found during the same search, State v. Miyasato, 805 So. 2d 818, 820 & n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); State v. Glass, 657 So. 2d 934, 935 & n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); cf. State v. Waterman, 613 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), approved, Lopez v. State, 638 So. 2d 931 (Fla.1994); to suppress different state [*856] ments made during a booking and transport process, State v. McAdams, 559 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), approved, Lopez, or a two-day period…
Authorities Cited
- State v. McADAMS, 559 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- State v. Clark, 384 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Cantor v. Matozzo, 444 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Salim Aref Bouchacra v. The Honorable Kenneth M. Leffler, 413 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- State v. Willits, 413 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)