STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT.
v.
J.M.C., A CHILD, 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 appealed a juvenile court suppression order, and the defendant moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction claiming the appeal was untimely. The court held that an order is rendered only when a judge personally signs it, not when a judicial assistant rubber-stamps the judge's name, and therefore the appeal was timely filed from the actual signed order.
The notice of appeal was timely. Under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h), an order is rendered when a signed, written order is filed with the clerk, and a judicial assistant's act of rubber-stamping the judge's name does not constitute a signed order. The appeal period commenced on March 27, 1998, when the judge's personally signed order was filed.
[1] An order is rendered when a signed, written order is filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal.
[2] A judicial assistant's act of rubber-stamping a judge's name on a document does not constitute a "signed" order for purposes of commencing the time for appeal.
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“An order is rendered when a signed, written order is filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal.”
Establishes the legal standard for when an appellate period begins to run under Florida appellate rules
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn March 1998, a juvenile court judge's judicial assistant placed the judge's name on a form order using a signature stamp and filed it on March 5, 19…
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 Timeliness Of Notice Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On April 6,1998, the State filed a notice of appeal in this juvenile case seeking relief from the trial court’s order, rendered March 27, 1998, granting a motion to suppress. J.M.C. filed a motion to dismiss claiming the notice of appeal was untimely because the trial court “signed” a form entitled “order,” which had been filed with the clerk on March 5,1998.1
Affidavits have been filed with this court describing the unusual “efficiency” procedures adopted for juvenile cases in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Courts for Lee County. In 1997, the Juvenile Division of the Clerk of Courts stopped using court minutes in favor of a form entitled “order.” The clerk filled out this form at the hearing and then delivered it to the judge’s office. In this case, the document was not signed by the judge; the judicial assistant simply placed the judge’s name on the document, using a signature stamp. The “order” with the stamped signature was then filed and apparently served. Thereafter, the trial judge personally signed and served a formal order entitled “Order Suppressing Evidence” on March 26, 1998, which was filed on March 27,1998.2
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h) is determinative in this matter: “An order is rendered when a signed, written order is filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal.” The judicial assistant’s act of rubber-stamping the “order” did not result in a “signed” order within the meaning of the rule.3 There is no indication that the judge saw the initial “order,” much less that he signed it. The time for filing the notice of appeal commenced when the signed order was filed with the clerk on March 27, 1998. The notice of appeal was timely filed. The motion to dismiss is denied.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and QUINCE and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur. . The State is required to file such an appeal within fifteen days. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.145(c)(2).
. The affidavits indicate that a follow-up order was not always prepared. If this is the case, there may be cases in which rendered orders do not exist. We do not confront that problem today.
.This court is not addressing an instance when the original, signed order of the court is accidentally transmitted to a party and the only order of record is an order with a stamped signature.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Barber, 744 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…n order was never “rendered” on the matter, and the trial judge in the instant case erred in refusing to exercise discretion in the matter and in believing that no discretion was exercisable because of an earlier judge’s ruling. See State v. J.M.C., 714 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); see also State v. Smith, 118 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED; REMANDED. DAUKSCH, GOSHORN and PETERSON, JJ., concur.…