STEVEN SILLS, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1998-09-11

No. 98-02971

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FULMER and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.

718 So. 2d 305 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1998) Positive Treatment

Cited by 4 cases

Topics

Appealability Postconviction Relief

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appealability cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Steven Sills challenges the trial court’s orders denying his motion for postconviction relief and motion for rehearing. Regrettably, the order denying the motion for rehearing is a rubber stamp of the variety that this court has disapproved for use in criminal cases, for orders which are appealable, on at least seven prior occasions, all originating from Hillsborough County, as does this appeal. See Hardwick v. State, 702 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Washington v. State, 694 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Turner v. State, 667 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Parnell v. State, 642 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Gibson v. State, 642 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. Sullivan, 640 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. Moore, 563 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

As we have said in the past, this type of order is generally incapable of being rendered — and indeed this one was not — and, if riot rendered, it is not appealable.

We dismiss this appeal and direct the trial court to respond to Sills’ motion for rehearing with a rendered order capable of being appealed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FULMER and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Kerrin v. State, 8 So. 3d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)

…nied the claim. This determination was improper, as double jeopardy claims are cognizable in rule 3.850 motions. See State v. Williams, 854 So. 2d 215, 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Rudolf v. State, 851 So. 2d 839, 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Damon v. State, 718 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Further, at least one district court has held that dual convictions for armed home invasion robbery and armed burglary violate the principles of double jeopardy. See Perez v. State, 951 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); see generall…
Haitham Saleh Suleiman v. State, 861 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)

…the “order” was served on the movant. This order is akin to the rubber-stamp orders we have previously disapproved for use in postconviction proceedings on numerous occasions. See Hutchins v. State, 750 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Sills v. State, 718 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Hardwick v. State, 702 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Turner v. State, 667 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Gibson v. State, 642 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. Sullivan, 640 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Parnell v. State, 6…

Authorities Cited

State v. Sullivan, 640 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
Shands Teaching Hosp. v. Miller, 642 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
Parnell v. State, 642 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
State v. Moore, 563 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
Turner v. State, 667 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
Hardwick v. State, 702 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
Washington v. State, 694 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw