ALEX A. GRANQUIST, ALIAS PETER THOMPSON, ALIAS ALEX GREEN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
This case reviews a conviction for breaking and entering. The appellate court affirmed the conviction because the defendant failed to properly present his bill of exceptions within the legally allowed timeframe, rendering the appellate review of the evidence and jury charge impossible.
No, the appellate court cannot review the sufficiency of the evidence or jury charges if the bill of exceptions is not properly presented and settled within the statutory time frame.
“The order of December 23, 1922, allowing additional time for the presentation of the bill of exceptions, was outside the Court’s power and is a nullity.”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning for invalidating the extended time granted for the bill of exceptions.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was indicted for breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and was found guilty by a jury. He sought to appeal the j…
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 Intent To Commit A Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
By indictment of a grand jury of Pinellas County plaintiff in error was charged with the crime of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. There was a trial of the-issue made by a plea of not guilty to this indictment, resulting in a verdict finding him guilty as charged. To review the judgment imposing sentence writ of error was taken from this Court.
Assignments of error present only the questions of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and the propriety of one charge given by the Court to the jury.
On September 25, 1922, a motion for new trial was denied and defendant allowed ninety days in which to present and settle his bill of exceptions. On September 27, 1922, Court adjourned for the term. On December 23, 1922, upon motion of the defendant, an order was made allowing an additional thirty days “to perfect his appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Florida.’ The bill of exceptions w.as presented and settled January 25, 1923, 120 days after the trial court had adjourned for the term. The order of December 23, 1922, allowing additional time for the presentation of the bill of exceptions, was outside the Court’s power and is a nullity. The bill of exceptions having been presented and signed after the expiration of the time allowed for that purpose when the motion for a new trial was denied, cannot be considered. Jackson v. State, 84 Fla. 646, 94 South. Rep. 505. Even if the bill of exceptions 'had been duly authenticated and made a part of the record, the order of the trial Court denying the motion for a new trial, with the exception to the ruling, is not incorporated in it, so this ruling could not be reviewed. Revell v. State, 85 Fla. 402, 96 South. Rep. 156; Alexander v. Rhine, 78 Fla. 313, 82 South. Rep. 831; Palmore v. State, 65 Fla. 539, 62 South. Rep. 581; Cooper v. State, 47 Fla. 21, 36 South. Rep. 53; McDonald v. State, 46 Fla. 149, 35 South. Rep. 72.
The judgment is affirmed..
Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Browne and Terrell, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Warner v. Goding, 91 Fla. 260 (Fla. 1926)…rdict. In this state of the record, under Section 2811, Revised General Statutes of Florida, there was no legal motion for a new trial for the court to consider, so the motion to strike was properly granted. DeSoto Holding Co. v. Boyer, 85 Fla. 517, 97 South. Rep. 205. The motion for new trial having been stricken, can the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict be now considered on the denial of the motion for an instructed verdict, the denial of said motion having been assigned as error and ar…
-
Davenport v. State, 94 Fla. 32 (Fla. 1927)…late court. 2 R. C. L. 144; Bush v. State, 21 Fla. 569; Washington v. State, 48 Fla. 62, 37 So. 573; Bardwell v. State, 49 Fla. 1, 38 So. 511; Carter v. Stockton, 60 Fla. 33, 53 So. 450; Jackson v. State, 84 Fla. 646, 94 So. 505; Granquist v. State, 86 Fla. 32, 97 So. 205; Lanier v. Shayne, 85 Fla. 212, 95 So. 617; Preston v. The State, 86 Fla. 476, 98 So. 358. In the absence of some reasonable showing why the bill of exceptions was not presented to Judge Lane within the [*42] time allowed by his special…
-
Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Luke, 156 Fla. 638 (Fla. 1945)…erm pursuant to the statute, the court is, for the purpose of hearing and determining such motion, regarded as continuing in session until the motion is disposed of. Adams v. Wolf, 103 Fla. 547, 137 So. 705; DeSota Holding Co. v. Boyer, 85 Fla. 517, 97 So. 205. And we have also held that when, after the court term has expired, the Judge disposes of a motion for new trial at a later day, he then holds a term of court with reference to that particular case for the purpose of disposing of the motion. Hazen v…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Risden McDonald v. State, 46 Fla. 149 (Fla. 1903)
- Jackson v. State, 84 Fla. 646 (Fla. 1922)
- Alexander v. Rhine, 78 Fla. 313 (Fla. 1919)
- Isaiah E. Cooper v. State, 47 Fla. 21 (Fla. 1904)
- Fierce Palmore v. State, 65 Fla. 539 (Fla. 1913)
- Revell v. State, 85 Fla. 402 (Fla. 1923)