CHARLES GOODWIN AND WILLIAM KEMP, PETITIONERS,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Petitioners sought prohibition to prevent the circuit court from hearing the State's untimely appeal of a suppression order. The court held that motions for rehearing directed at suppression orders are not authorized under Florida's appellate rules and therefore do not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal, making the State's appeal untimely.
Motions for rehearing directed at suppression orders are not authorized under the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and do not toll the period for filing a notice of appeal. Although courts have the power to reconsider interlocutory suppression rulings, this power does not authorize motions for rehearing that would suspend the deadline for filing an appeal.
[1] A motion for rehearing must be authorized by rule to toll the time for filing a notice of appeal.
[2] The Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure do not authorize motions for rehearing directed to orders granting motions to suppress.
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“Only an 'authorized and timely' motion for rehearing can toll the period for filing a notice of appeal.”
Establishes the legal standard that authorization under the rules is necessary, not just the court's power to reconsider.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGoodwin and Kemp were charged in county court with driving under the influence causing property damage. They moved to suppress breath test results, an…
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 Appeal Period cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Charles Goodwin and William Kemp petition this court for a writ of prohibition directing the circuit court to dismiss the State’s appeal. Petitioners allege that the State failed to timely file a notice of appeal from a suppression order of the county court. We agree and grant prohibition.
Petitioners were each charged in county court with driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages, causing property damage. See § 316.193, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998). Petitioners sought suppression of the breath test results. The county court granted the suppression motions.
Ten days after the filing of the orders with the clerk’s office, the State filed motions for rehearing. One week later, the court denied the State’s motions for rehearing. Fourteen days later (and thirty-one days after rendition of the order granting defendants’ motions to suppress), the State filed its notices of appeal, thereby initiating an appeal to the circuit court.
Petitioners filed motions in the circuit court to dismiss the State’s appeals as untimely in that the State failed to file the notices within fifteen days following rendition of the court’s orders granting the motions to suppress. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(c)(3). The trial court denied petitioners’ motions. The court reasoned that the time for filing the notices of appeal was tolled by the filing of the motions for rehearing. The petitioners then sought prohibition here.
Only an “authorized and timely” motion for rehearing can toll the period for filing a notice of appeal. Id. R. 9.020(h). The State concedes that the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure do not “authorize” motions for rehearing directed to motions to suppress. The State nonetheless argues that the motions for rehearing were “authorized” pursuant to case law because a suppression order is an interlocutory ruling which can always be revisited by the court. Savoie v. State, 422 So. 2d 308, 312 (Fla.1982)(determining that a trial court has the power to reconsider a ruling made on a motion to suppress upon motion by either party while the court has jurisdiction of the case); Obregon v. State, 601 So. 2d 616, 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)(same).
While it is true that the court has the power to reconsider an interlocutory ruling on a motion to suppress, this does not mean that the filing of such a motion tolls the time for filing an appeal. Wagner v. Bieley, Wagner & Assocs., Inc., 263 So. 2d 1, 4 (Fla.1972). Under Rule 9.020(h), only an “authorized” motion suspends rendition of an order, and the rules do not authorize a motion for rehearing of an order on a motion to suppress. The appeals were untimely filed and must be dismissed.
Prohibition granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Peart, 843 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…rrect, not even the court”). Because the circuit court did not dismiss Respondents’ appeal as it should have, this court may exercise its prohibition power to prevent the lower court from exercising jurisdiction in this case. See Goodwin v. State, 826 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Peltz v. District Court of Appeal, Third Dist., 605 So. 2d 865 (Fla.1992). Prohibition granted.…
-
City OF Palm BAY & City of Palm Bay Code v. Palm BAY Greens, LLC, 969 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…tion for rehearing can toll the period for filing a notice of appeal. While a lower tribunal may have the power to reconsider an order, the filing of an unauthorized rehearing motion will not toll the time for filing an appeal. See Goodwin v. State, 826 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). The City is entitled to prohibition relief. We herewith issue the writ. WRIT GRANTED. PALMER, C.J., GRIFFIN and LAWSON, JJ., concur. . Prohibition is the appropriate remedy to prevent a lower tribunal from improperly exercisi…1 / 2
-
State v. Cook, 992 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…[*871] PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. Goodwin v. State, 826 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). BENTON, VAN NORTWICK, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Schell, 422 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1982)
- Wagner v. Bieley, 263 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972)
- Obregon v. State, 601 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)