ARTHUR DEBOSE, 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.
The appellate court dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was filed too late. The court clarified that the time to file an appeal runs from the date the order is rendered, not from the date the inmate receives it.
The time for filing a notice of appeal runs from the date the order is rendered, not from the date of receipt. Therefore, Debose's appeal was untimely.
[1] A notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of the date an order denying post-conviction relief is rendered, regardless of when the defendant receives the order.
[2] A defendant's receipt of an order denying post-conviction relief does not trigger the commencement of the thirty-day period for filing a notice of 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“In a response to this court’s order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely, Debose responded that due to his transfer to three different prisons he did not receive the denial order until August 22, 2005.”
This quote establishes the appellant's argument for why his appeal was late.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDebose appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. The order was rendered on August 11, 2005, but Debose did not file his notice of …
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 Mailbox Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Debose appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The order denying the motion was rendered on August 11, 2005, but Debose’s notice of appeal was not filed under the mail box rule1 until September 19, 2005. In a response to this court’s order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely, Debose responded that due to his transfer to three different prisons he did not receive the denial order until August 22, 2005. We dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
We write only for the purpose of informing Debose, and other similarly situated defendants who receive post-conviction orders denying relief later than ordinary mail but sooner than the time (thirty days) for filing a notice of appeal, that the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of the date the order is rendered.2 If not, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction.
In this case, Debose had nineteen days left in which he could have filed his notice of appeal simply by delivering it to prison authorities, under the mail box rule. There are no circumstances alleged in his response which excuse why the notice of appeal could not have been timely filed. Under the “mail box rule,” the defendant is aided in time by delivering a notice of appeal to the prison authorities and having that count as the time of filing the notice. However, the receipt of an order does not trigger the running of the thirty-days time in which to file, or in this case, the required time in which to deliver a notice of appeal to prison authorities. Absent some extraordinary circumstances which would prevent a defendant from filing a notice of appeal with prison authorities, not alleged in this case, a defendant who can comply with the thirty-day requirement must do so or lose his right to appeal.
DISMISSED.
SHARP, W., THOMPSON and PALMER, JJ., concur. . See Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla.1992).
. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(g).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Thurston McCLAIN, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)
- Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)