STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT FULLER, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal rejected a defendant's motion to dismiss the State's appeal of a pretrial suppression order, holding that the defendant waived his right to require personal service of the notice of appeal when he failed to maintain contact with his counsel or provide a known address.
The court held that the failure to serve notice of appeal on the defendant is not jurisdictional and does not warrant dismissal of the appeal when the defendant is responsible for his own unavailability. The defendant waived any rights conferred by the rule requiring personal service by failing to inform his counsel of his whereabouts.
[1] A defendant who is at large and whose whereabouts are unknown has an obligation to inform counsel of how to be reached, thereby waiving strict compliance with rules requi…
[2] Failure to personally serve a defendant with a notice of appeal is not a jurisdictional defect when the defendant's whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained.
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“In Jenkins, the issue was whether failure to serve the defendant, when the state appeals a criminal case, is jurisdictional, and the Florida Supreme Court held that it was not.”
Establishes that failure to serve notice of appeal is not a jurisdictional defect under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State appealed a pretrial order granting the defendant's motion to suppress evidence. The defendant's whereabouts became unknown after he left a h…
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 Jurisdiction Of Appeals cases and more on FLexlaw
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Appeal
KLEIN, J.
The State has appealed a pretrial order granting defendant’s motion to suppress. Defendant’s counsel has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the state has not served the notice of appeal on the defendant personally, as is required by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(3). The failure to serve was because defendant’s address is unknown. We deny the motion.
Rule 9.140(c), which authorizes an appeal by the state to appeal pretrial suppression orders, requires the state to serve copies of the notice of appeal “on the defendant and the attorney of record.” Rule 9.140(c)(3). In this ease the state showed in its certifícate of service that it had furnished a copy of the notice of appeal to “Robert Fuller, Defendant (At Large).” In his motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to serve notice, defendant’s counsel states that defendant’s last known address is a shelter for the homeless. Counsel states that two letters he sent to the shelter were returned, and when he telephoned the shelter, he was advised that defendant had left with no forwarding address on June 7, 2000.
As authority for this court to dismiss the appeal, defendant’s counsel has attached a copy of an unpublished 1992 order of this court dismissing an appeal because the appellee defendant had moved without a forwarding address and had no knowledge of the appeal. We cited Jenkins v. Lyles, 223 So. 2d 740 (Fla.1969). In Jenkins, the issue was whether failure to serve the defendant, when the state appeals a criminal case, is jurisdictional, and the Florida Supreme Court held that it was not. In that case the failure to serve was apparently inadvertent, not for the reason that the defendant could not be located, and the supreme court denied dismissal because there had been no prejudice. In a footnote the court stated “Compare State v. Maschek, 147 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962),” in which the appeal was dismissed in a short opinion showing that the state had not served a copy of the notice of appeal on the defendant whose whereabouts were known when the notice of appeal was filed.
We are unable to determine whether the appeals taken by the state in the above cited cases were from final orders or pretrial orders. We conclude that, in this case, where the appeal is from a pretrial order and the charges are still pending, the defendant had an obligation to let his counsel know where to reach him.1 To dismiss the appeal would be to reward the defendant for his own dereliction. We therefore conclude that defendant waived any rights conferred by the rule requiring service on him and deny the motion to dismiss.
SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. . Defendant’s counsel is not taking the position that he is not counsel representing defen-danl on this appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Eli S. Jenkins v. Hon. Woody A. Lyles, 223 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1969)
- State v. Maschek, 147 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)