JAIRON JAMAAR DORSEY, 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.
Jairon Dorsey appealed the denial of his motion to correct a scrivener's error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court's order was improperly entered and failed to comply with procedural requirements for rendering orders and informing the defendant of appellate rights.
The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order was not properly rendered and was insufficient to invoke appellate jurisdiction. The court would have reversed the order even if properly rendered because it lacked explanation of rationale and failed to inform the defendant of his appellate rights as required by rule 3.800(a).
[1] An order denying a motion to correct a scrivener's error is insufficient to invoke appellate jurisdiction if it is not rendered and does not inform the movant of their ri…
[2] A perfunctory notation denying a motion, without explanation or record attachments, is an insufficient basis for appellate review.
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 perfunctory notation produced the kind of order that this court has frowned upon many times in the past.”
The court criticizes the trial judge's informal manner of denying the motion by merely writing on the motion itself.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDorsey filed a motion to correct scrivener's error on April 15, 2009. The circuit court judge denied the motion by writing 'Denied,' his signature, 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 Rendition Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal from the summary denial of Jairon Dorsey’s motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings.
Dorsey filed a motion to correct scrivener’s error pursuant to rule 3.800(a) to which the circuit court clerk’s office affixed its stamp reflecting an April 15, 2009, filing date. The circuit court judge denied Dorsey’s motion by writing “Denied,” his signature, and the date April 16, 2009, on the face of the motion. This perfunctory notation produced the kind of order that this court has frowned upon many times in the past. See Suleiman v. State, 861 So.2d 1175, 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (Fulmer, J., concurring and citing “numerous” cases). Moreover, because the only filing date on the order in our summary record refers to the date the motion was filed, it appears that the order itself has not been rendered; consequently, the order is insufficient to invoke this court’s appellate jurisdiction. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(b); 9.020(h); State v. Sullivan, 640 So.2d 77, 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. Moore, 563 So.2d 115, 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Smith v. State, 582 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). In spite of being directed to supply this court with a copy of *691an appropriately rendered order, the circuit court judge and clerk have failed to do so.
Furthermore, even if the order had been rendered by forwarding a copy of the motion to the clerk for filing, see Suleiman, 861 So.2d at 1176 (Fulmer, J., concurring), this court would be constrained to reverse because the order contains no explanation of the court’s rationale or record attachments to refute Dorsey’s claims, nor does it inform Dorsey of his right to appeal within thirty days of rendition as required by rule 3.800(a). See Walters v. State, 994 So.2d 1230, 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Gassaway v. State, 993 So.2d 1186, 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and remand for entry of a final order capable of rendition and appellate review within thirty days from the date of this opinion.
KELLY and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perez v. State, 60 So. 3d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…encounters with the postconviction court’s order is not unlike that created when a postconviction judge simply stamps “denied” on a motion: we are left to review a barebones order without any insight into the court’s reasoning. See Dorsey v. State, 36 So. 3d 690, 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Suleiman v. State, 861 So. 2d 1175, 1175-1176 (Fla. 2d DCA [*567] 2003). When denying a motion for post-conviction relief, the court “must provide an explanation of the reasons for the denial and attach any relevant portions…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Sullivan, 640 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- State v. Moore, 563 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Smith v. State, 582 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Toot v. State, 861 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Walters v. State, 994 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Gassaway v. State, 993 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Cook v. State, 993 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)