REYNEL DIAZ HIJUELOS, 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.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence, but the appeal was dismissed because the notice of appeal was untimely filed relative to the judgment and sentence, which is the operative jurisdictional deadline for such challenges.
The court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion to suppress because the notice of appeal failed to timely invoke jurisdiction. The operative order for jurisdictional purposes in a criminal appeal is the judgment and sentence, not a subsequently-filed written order memorializing an oral denial of the motion to suppress.
[1] A written order denying a motion to suppress, entered after sentencing and memorializing an oral ruling, does not restart the time to appeal.
[2] A defendant may challenge the denial of a motion to suppress in a plenary appeal from the judgment and sentence, even if the denial was not reduced to writing and filed.
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“The operative written order in a defendant's appeal of an order denying a motion to suppress for jurisdictional purposes is the judgment and sentence.”
Establishes that the judgment and sentence, not a subsequently-filed written suppression order, is the operative order determining the deadline to appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court orally denied appellant's motion to suppress on May 4, 2011. Appellant entered a guilty plea on May 5, 2011. A final order imposing se…
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 Plenary Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal, filed on June 24, 2011, the appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence. The motion was orally denied on May 4, 2011, and the appellant filed a plea of guilty on May 5, 2011. A final order imposing sentence was filed with the clerk on May 16, 2011. Subsequently, the trial court issued a written order denying the motion to suppress, which was filed with the clerk on May 27, 2011. The appeal must be dismissed because the notice of appeal failed to timely invoke the Court’s jurisdiction. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(3).
“The operative written order in a defendant’s appeal of an order denying a motion to suppress for jurisdictional purposes is the judgment and sentence.” Cardoza v. State, 927 So.2d 1028, 1029 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). In the plenary appeal, a defendant may challenge the denial of a motion to suppress even where the denial was not reduced to writing and filed with the clerk of court. Id. However, a defendant in a criminal proceeding may not bring a separate appeal, which is independent of the plenary appeal from the judgment and sentence, for review of an order denying a motion to suppress. Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b); Eady v. State, 920 So.2d 1158, 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Hunter v. State, 583 So.2d 369, 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Although a written order is preferable, because it is unnecessary, a written order entered after sentencing that memorializes an oral ruling that denied a motion to suppress does not begin, *366or restart, the time to appeal. See generally Churchville v. Ocean Grove R.V. Sales, Inc., 876 So.2d 649, 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“An amendment or modification of an order or judgment in an immaterial, insubstantial way does not restart the clock to file an appeal.”). Therefore, the appellant’s notice of appeal, although filed within 30 days of the written order denying the motion to suppress, nevertheless failed to timely invoke the Court’s jurisdiction to review the judgment and sentence. Consequently, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of the appellant’s motion to suppress.
DISMISSED.
DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lagi v. State, 261 So. 3d 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Churchville v. Ocean Grove R.V. Sales, Inc., 876 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Hunter v. State, 583 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Eady v. State, 920 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Dep't OF Health v. Lashawnda Williams, 927 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Cardoza v. State, 927 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)