CHRISTOPHER DAVENPORT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Christopher Davenport appealed the trial court's summary denial of his motion for jail time credit and clarification of gain time under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The appellate court dismissed the appeal because the trial court used an improperly rendered form order (rubber stamp) without filing it with the clerk, but remanded with directions for the trial court to reconsider and render a proper order.
The appellate court held that the form order was not properly rendered for appellate review purposes because it was not filed with the clerk as required by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(g). The court dismissed the appeal but remanded with directions for the trial court to reconsider the motion and render an appropriate, properly filed order.
[1] A trial court's use of a rubber-stamped form order is inappropriate when it is essential to fix a point from which crucial time periods are to be calculated for purposes…
[2] An appellate court must dismiss an appeal when the record does not reflect that the order sought to be appealed was ever rendered by filing it with the clerk.
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“although the use of such a form order may be appropriately used in some circumstances, it '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).'”
Establishes the core holding that rubber-stamped form orders are inappropriate for Rule 3.800 motions where timing is critical.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavenport filed a motion under Rule 3.800(a) seeking additional jail time credit prior to sentencing and clarification of a prior gain time order. The…
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 Refutation of Allegations cases and more on FLexlaw
LAZZARA, Judge.
Christopher Davenport appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) in which he sought additional credit for jail time served prior to his sentencing and a clarification of an earlier order granting him gain time.1 Davenport’s motion, although unartfully drawn, was fact-specific as to the relief he was seeking. We conclude that we must dismiss this appeal because of the procedure used by the trial court in denying the motion. We do so, however, with directions that on remand the trial court reconsider Davenport’s motion and render an appropriate order we can review.
The trial court denied the motion without any attachments by using a form order rubber-stamped on the last page of the motion on which it wrote the word denied, the date of denial, and its signature. The order recited as follows:
MOTION HEARD, CONSIDERED AND Denied EXCEPTION NOTED THIS 6/7 1994. YOU ARE ADVISED THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO APPEAL THIS ORDER WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THIS ORDER IS FILED.
JUDGE’S SIGNATURE JUDGE
There is no indication in the record that this “order” was ever rendered by filing it with the clerk as required by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(g), and Davenport’s notice of appeal was directed to an order “rendered on the 7th day of June, 1994.”
We have made it clear that although the use of such a form order may be appropriately used in some circumstances, it “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. Sullivan, 640 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). See also Parnell v. State, Case No. 94-01417, 1994 WL 390754 (Fla. 2d DCA July 27,1994) (“Rubber stamps may have some use for pretrial motions, but they are usually inappropriate for motions filed under rules 3.800 and 3.850.”)
Accordingly, since the record does not reflect that the order Davenport seeks to appeal was ever rendered, we dismiss his appeal. We remand, however, with directions that the trial court reconsider the motion and render an appropriate order addressing the issues raised by Davenport. If the trial court again summarily denies the motion, it must attach such portions of the record that conclusively refute Davenport’s allegations. Weems v. State, 627 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Any party aggrieved by the trial court’s subsequent order must file a notice of appeal within thirty days of rendition of such order to obtain appellate review.
Appeal dismissed; remanded with directions.
PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur. . This order was entered in response to an earlier motion to correct sentence filed by Davenport.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LaBron A. Rodgers v. State, 645 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…PER CURIAM. LaBron A. Rodgers appeals the denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We dismiss this appeal on the authority of Davenport v. State, 640 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), and Parnell v. State, 642 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), and remand with directions that the trial court “render” an order on Rodgers’ motion in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(g). CAMPBELL, A.C.J., a…
-
Henry's Off. Supplies & Northbrook/Allstate Ins. Co. v. Henry, 724 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…nal as required by rule 9.020(h). Appellate courts have previously discouraged the use of rubber stamps to rule on motions. Parnell v. State, 642 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Gibson v. State, 642 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Davenport v. State, 640 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); 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). As stated in Parnell, a rubber-stamped “order” on the face of a document th…
-
Drew v. State, 642 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…PER CURIAM. Eric Anthony Drew appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We dismiss this appeal on the authority of Davenport v. State, 640 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) and Parnell v. State, 642 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), and remand with directions that the trial court “render” an order on Drew’s motion in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(g). Dismissed and remanded…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Sullivan, 640 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Weems v. State, 627 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)