STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ELIZABETH SULLIVAN, 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.
The State appeals a trial court's order granting a defendant's motion to withdraw guilty pleas and vacate sentences. The appellate court dismisses the appeal due to a jurisdictional defect: the trial court failed to properly render its order in compliance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(g).
The appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review the order because it was never properly rendered. An order is not appealable until it is reduced to writing and filed with the clerk, and the trial court's oral pronouncement combined with an unfiled stamped order does not satisfy the rendition requirements of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(g).
[1] An order is not appealable until it is rendered, which requires it to be reduced to writing and filed with the clerk.
[2] A stamped order on the face of a motion, even if initialed by the judge, does not satisfy the requirements of rendition for appeal purposes if it is not filed with the cl…
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“A trial court's order is not appealable until it is rendered. Rendition does not occur until the order has been reduced to writing and filed with the clerk.”
Establishes the fundamental requirement for an order to be appealable—it must satisfy both the written form and filing requirements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElizabeth Sullivan filed a motion to withdraw her guilty pleas and vacate her sentences on October 9, 1992. The trial court orally granted the motion …
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.020(G) cases and more on FLexlaw
LAZZARA, Judge.
The state appeals the trial court’s order granting the appellee’s motion to withdraw her pleas of guilty and to vacate her sentences. We dismiss the appeal.
The appellee filed her motion on October 9, 1992. On November 20, 1992, the trial court conducted a hearing on the motion and orally granted it. At some point, the trial court used a standard order stamped on the margin of the motion to reduce its ruling to writing. This order reflects that the motion was granted on November 20, 1992, and contains the trial court’s initials. The record reflects that this stamped order was never rendered by filing it with the clerk as required by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(g). No other written order was entered.
The state filed its notice of appeal on December 2, 1992. The notice was specifically directed to the order of the trial court “rendered on the record on the 20th day of November, 1992.”
Based on a preliminary review of the record, we found sua sponte that the order which the state sought to appeal was a non-appealable order. We, therefore, entered an order on February 4, 1994, relinquishing jurisdiction to the trial court for a period of thirty days for the entry of a proper appeal-able order. We also directed the state to supplement the record with a certified copy of the order. There was no compliance with our order. In the past, this court has been careful to point out that we do not discourage the use of a short form order stamped on 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 provided an opportunity to correct this jurisdictional deficiency, and it was not corrected. Accordingly, we have no other alternative but to dismiss this appeal.1 See Moore.
In closing, we again remind counsel that “[a] trial court’s order is not appealable until it is rendered. Rendition does not occur until the order has been reduced to writing and filed with the clerk.” Billie v. State, 473 So. 2d 34, 34-35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (citations omitted). If a trial court fails or refuses to enter a written order that is needed for an appeal, counsel has the remedy of filing a motion or a petition for writ of mandamus with this court to compel the trial court to enter such an order. State v. Bolick, 512 So. 2d 960 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
Appeal dismissed.
RYDER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur. . Even if we had jurisdiction, we do not find from the record that the trial court committed error by allowing the appellee to withdraw her pleas of guilty. Goodwin v. State, 598 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Parnell v. State, 642 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…document does not receive a second date stamp from the clerk, there is nothing on the face of the appellate record to establish that the order has ever been rendered. See Johnson v. State, 573 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); cf. State v. Sullivan, 640 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (dismissing appeal from “order” that trial court rubber-stamped on face of motion where record did not reveal that such “order” was ever rendered by filing with clerk’s office). We recognize that the rubber stamp may save a few m…
-
Gibson v. State, 642 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…ure 9.020(g). Therefore, the order is not appealable. Billie v. State, 473 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). We have previously outlined the confusion caused by, and the deficiencies resulting from, the use of rubber-stamped orders. State v. Sullivan, 640 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (dismissing appeal from “order” that trial court rubber-stamped on face of motion where record did not reveal that such “order” was ever rendered by filing with clerk’s office); see also Parnell v. State, 642 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 2d…
-
Sibley v. State, 876 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…20(h), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. A rubber stamped order such as the one used in the present case is not sufficient to invoke this court’s appellate jurisdiction. See Gibson v. State, 642 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. Sullivan, 640 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Without rendition, the order is not appealable. Rubber stamped orders might find some limited use in less consequential pretrial orders, but they are usually inappropriate for the disposition of motions filed under Rules 3.800 or…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Moore, 563 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- State v. Green, 527 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Billie v. State, 473 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Goodwin v. State, 598 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- State v. Bolick, 512 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)