JOHN D. GIBSON, 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.
The appellate court dismissed the appeal because the trial court's order denying the motion was not properly rendered by filing, making it unappealable.
[1] A rubber-stamped order denying a motion is not appealable when the record does not reflect that the order was rendered by filing it with the clerk.
[2] The use of rubber-stamped orders to rule on motions is discouraged when it is essential to fix a point in time for calculating crucial time periods for rendition.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn D. Gibson appealed the summary denial of his motion seeking correction of his sentence and additional jail time credit. The trial court denied 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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.020(G) cases and more on FLexlaw
[*44] FULMER, Judge.
John D. Gibson appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) in which he claimed that the sentence imposed was longer than that agreed to in his negotiated plea. The motion also sought additional credit for jail time served prior to sentencing. Because the procedure used by the trial court in denying the motion precludes our review, we dismiss this appeal.
The trial court denied the motion without any attachments by using a rubber-stamped order on the last page of the motion. The record does not reflect that the order was ever rendered by filing it with the clerk as required by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 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 DCA 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.”) Once again, we discourage the use of rubber-stamped orders to rule on motions when it is essential to fix a point in time from which crucial time periods are to be calculated for purposes of rendition under rule 9.020(g).
Since the record does not reflect that the order Gibson seeks to review was ever rendered, we dismiss his appeal with directions that the trial court reconsider the motion and render an appropriate order susceptible of review. If the trial court again summarily denies the motion, it must attach such portions of the record that conclusively refute Gibson’s allegations. Weems v. State, 627 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
Appeal dismissed; remanded with directions.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sibley v. State, 876 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…e Clerk of the lower tribunal as required by Rule 9.020(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…
-
Turner v. State, 667 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…denying” a motion for postconvietion relief. We dismiss for lack of an appealable order. On the face of Turner’s motion, there is a handwritten margin note “Denied 11/2/95” followed by some symbol which appears to be initials. In Gibson v. State, 642 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), this court disapproved of the trial court’s use of a rubber-stamped denial signed by a trial judge and entered on the face of the motion for postconviction relief. Here we have even less. Although we assume that a trial judge d…
-
Hardwick v. State, 702 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…ur review of the document establishes that no effort was undertaken by the circuit court clerk to render it in fact. For several years we have been dismissing summary appeals disposed of in this fashion with some frequency, citing Gibson v. State, 642 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The practice of using rubber-stamped denials of collateral motions has virtually ceased in this district. We are confident that we encounter this one only because it dates from almost a year ago. Because the order from which Ha…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Sullivan, 640 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Parnell v. State, 642 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Billie v. State, 473 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Weems v. State, 627 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)