JERRY GRIFFIS, 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.
Jerry Griffis appeals his conviction for sexual offenses against a child, but fled before trial and remained at large for over six years. The State moved to dismiss the appeal under State v. Gurican, which holds that flight from justice constitutes a waiver of appellate rights. The court granted the motion while certifying a question to the Florida Supreme Court about whether Gurican should be reconsidered in light of subsequent federal precedent.
The court held that Gurican is binding precedent and controls this case, requiring dismissal of the appeal based on the defendant's flight from justice. However, the court certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court asking whether Gurican should be re-evaluated in light of Ortega-Rodriguez.
[1] A defendant's flight from justice constitutes a waiver of the right to appellate review.
[2] State appellate courts are bound by the precedent of their respective state supreme courts, even when federal supervisory power decisions suggest a different approach.
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“Asserting that appellant's flight from justice constituted a waiver of his right to appellate review, the state now moves to dismiss this appeal on the authority of State v. Gurican”
Establishes the core legal issue: whether flight from justice waives appellate rights under Gurican
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGriffis absconded following jury selection in a sexual offense case and was tried in absentia in February 1990, resulting in a guilty verdict. His mot…
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 Waiver Of Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
ON APPELLEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
PER CURIAM.
After appellant absconded following jury selection, he was tried in absentia in February 1990 and found guilty of various sexual offenses against a child victim. Appellant’s motion for new trial was denied in March 1990, and more than six years then passed before he was returned to custody in May 1996. On June 5,1996, the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty in accordance with the jury’s verdict and sentenced him to a lengthy prison term, and a notice of appeal was thereafter filed on June 20, 1996. Asserting that appellant’s flight from justice constituted a waiver of his right to appellate review, the state now moves to dismiss this appeal on the authority of State v. Gurican, 576 So. 2d 709 (Fla.1991).
In response, appellant argues with some persuasiveness that Gurican should not control because many of the policy considerations underlying that decision were subsequently rejected in Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234, 113 S.Ct. 1199, 122 L.Ed.2d 581 (1993). However, because we agree with the state that this case is materially indistinguishable from Gurican, we are without authority to disregard this binding precedent. See Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla.1973). Deference to our supreme court on this question is particularly appropriate in this instance since, as the Missouri Supreme Court noted in State v. Troupe, 891 S.W. 2d 808 (Mo.1995), the United States Supreme Court decided Ortega-Rodriguez in the exercise of its supervisory power over the federal courts and not on the basis of any federal constitutional principle.1 Therefore, since the Florida Supreme Court has unequivocally announced the policy of the Florida courts on this issue, it is obviously the appropriate forum for resolving the question of whether that policy should be reconsidered.
Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion and dismiss the appeal.2 We find merit, however, in appellant’s suggestion that the Florida Supreme Court should be given the opportunity to revisit this issue, and we therefore certify the following question for its consideration:
SHOULD THE HOLDING IN STATE v. GURICAN, 576 So. 2d 709 (Fla.1991), BE RE-EVALUATED IN LIGHT OF ORTEGA-RODRIGUEZ v. UNITED STATES, 507 U.S. 234, 113 S.Ct. 1199, 122 L.Ed.2d 581 (1993)?
APPEAL DISMISSED and QUESTION CERTIFIED.
MICKLE, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur. . In Troupe, the court declined to follow Ortega-Rodríguez, and instead adhered to Missouri's "escape rule,” which is largely consistent with the rule announced in Gurican.
. We note that Gurican does not preclude the appeal of alleged sentencing errors. However, none of the four points raised in appellant’s initial brief are directed to sentencing issues.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Griffis v. State, 759 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 2000)…SHAW, J. We have for review Griffis v. State, 703 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), wherein the district court certified the following question: Should the holding in State v. Gurican, 576 So. 2d 709 (Fla.1991), be re-evaluated in light of Ortegar-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234, 113 S.Ct. 1199, 122 L…
-
Versiah M. Taylor v. State, 739 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…PER CURIAM. We grant appellant’s motion for certification, and certify to the supreme court the same question we certified in Griffis v. State, 703 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), review granted, Case No. 92,160, — So. 2d - (Fla.1998): SHOULD THE HOLDING IN STATE v. GURICAN, 576 So. 2d 709 (Fla.1991), BE RE-EVALUATED IN LIGHT OF ORTEGA-RODRIGUEZ v. UNITED STATES, 507 U.S. 234, 113 S.Ct. 1199, 122 L.Ed.2…
-
Versiah M. Taylor v. State, 711 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…PER CURIAM. We grant the state’s motion to dismiss, and dismiss this appeal on the authority of State v. Gurican, 576 So. 2d 709 (Fla.1991), and Griffis v. State, 703 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). APPEAL DISMISSED. BARFIELD, C.J., and KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973)
- Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234 (U.S. 1993)
- State v. Gurican, 576 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1991)