ROBERT E. SEABORNE, 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.
Seaborne challenged a postconviction order that purported to grant him a belated appeal after his counsel failed to reserve a suppression issue. The court held that only the appellate court, not the trial court, may grant a belated appeal, and that the proper remedy is to allow withdrawal of the guilty plea and entry of a new plea with the suppression issue properly reserved.
A trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant a belated appeal; only the appellate court has such authority. The proper remedy is to allow the defendant to withdraw his plea and plead anew, thereby enabling him to properly reserve the suppression issue for appeal.
[1] A trial court cannot grant a belated appeal; only an appellate court has jurisdiction to do so.
[2] When a postconviction motion establishes that a defendant's plea was involuntary due to counsel's error, the proper remedy is to allow the defendant to withdraw the plea…
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“This court, not the trial court, has jurisdiction to grant a belated appeal.”
Establishes that only the appellate court has jurisdiction to grant a belated appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSeaborne entered a guilty plea but his counsel failed to reserve a dispositive suppression issue for appeal. In postconviction proceedings, the state …
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 Belated Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In postconviction proceedings, the state stipulated and the trial court found that Robert E. Seaborne’s plea was involuntary in light of his counsel’s error in failing to reserve a dispositive suppression issue for appeal. However, rather than allowing Seaborne to withdraw his plea and plead anew, the decretal portion of the trial court’s order disposing of the motion for postconviction relief purports to grant Seaborne a belated appeal, thus giving rise to this proceeding. Appellant’s “notice of belated appeal” was filed within 30 days of rendition of the order on the motion for postconviction relief, but identifies the underlying April 1997 judgment and sentence as the matter being appealed. As it pertains to the judgment and sentence, we dismiss the appeal as untimely. Construing the notice of appeal as invoking our jurisdiction to review the order on appellant’s motion for postconviction relief, we reverse that order and remand with directions.
This court, not the trial court, has jurisdiction to grant a belated appeal. See Adams v. State, 734 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Moreover, the granting of a belated appeal is not the proper remedy in this situation. While Seaborne may have been precluded from raising the suppression issue as a consequence of his counsel’s oversight, a timely appeal from his original judgment and sentence was taken.1 See Seaborne v. State, 734 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
Accordingly, while we find no error in the conclusion that Seaborne is entitled to some relief under the circumstances, we reverse the decretal portion of the trial court’s order on the motion for postconviction relief and remand for further proced-ings. On remand, the trial court shall afford Seaborne the opportunity to withdraw his plea and plead anew, whereupon appellant may properly reserve the suppression issue for appeal. In the event he elects to do so, appellant will then be free to appeal the judgment and sentence imposed pursuant to his new plea. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)®.
BOOTH, BENTON and BROWNING, JJ., concur. . For this reason, we deny Seaborne’s request that this court grant him a belated appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hawley v. State, 877 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…rom the order, this court, in Hawley v. State, 822 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), reversed and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing, holding that Hawley had sufficiently alleged a prima facie ground for relief. See, e.g., Seaborne v. State, 789 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Levine v. State, 788 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (on reh’g); Zambuto v. State, 731 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Ashley v. State, 611 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Helms v. State, 573 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). On rema…
-
Adams v. State, 801 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…so Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(c). Furthermore, in criminal cases, the trial court does not have jurisdiction to grant a petition for belated appeal or give additional time to file a notice of appeal after an order has been rendered. See Seaborne v. State, 789 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Therefore, the appellant’s notice of appeal filed more than 30 days after rendition of the order denying appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief is untimely. We are precluded from treating either the notice of appeal or th…
Authorities Cited
- Adams v. State, 734 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Seaborne v. State, 734 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)