PETER DESSA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Peter Dessa appealed his robbery conviction challenging the trial court's denial of his motion for a new trial based on newly-discovered evidence. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but dismissed the appeal regarding the motion for a new trial due to lack of jurisdiction, as the motion was filed 47 days after verdict rather than within the required 10-day period.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion for a new trial because it was filed outside the 10-day jurisdictional deadline in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.590(a). Consequently, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the trial court's ruling on the merits and dismissed that portion of the appeal, but preserved Dessa's right to raise the newly-discovered evidence claim in a post-conviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider a motion for a new trial filed more than ten days after the rendition of the verdict in a noncapital case.
[2] The ten-day period for filing a motion for a new trial in a noncapital case is jurisdictional and cannot be extended by the parties or the court.
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 ten-day period "is jurisdictional in nature and, hence, cannot be extended by the parties or the trial court."”
Establishes that the deadline for filing a motion for a new trial is jurisdictional and absolute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDessa was convicted by jury verdict on April 17, 2008, for robbery using a deadly weapon. He filed a motion for a new trial on June 3, 2008—47 days la…
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 Newly Discovered Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Peter Dessa appeals his conviction and sentence for robbery using a deadly weapon, asserting that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial. We affirm the conviction and sentence, concluding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear and consider Dessa’s motion for a new trial. As a consequence of that conclusion, Dessa will be able to raise the issues identified in his motion for a new trial — “newly-discovered evidence” relating to a co-defendant’s statements to federal law enforcement authorities regarding the armed robbery for which Dessa was charged, tried, and convicted — in a post-conviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Dessa was found guilty in a jury verdict returned April 17, 2008.1 His motion for a new trial was filed forty-seven days later, on June 3, 2008. The motion does not set forth any particulars as to when the “new and material evidence” or alleged confession of the co-defendant were obtained.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.590(a) specifies that a motion for new trial (in a noncapital case such as this) is to be made within ten days after the rendition of the verdict. The ten-day period “is jurisdictional in nature and, hence, cannot be extended by the parties or the trial court.” State v. Bodden, 756 So.2d 1111, 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).2 The lack of jurisdiction in the trial court is also fatal to our jurisdiction to review the trial court’s ruling on the motion for new trial on its merits. See Daniels v. State, 712 So.2d 765 (Fla.1998).
We therefore dismiss Dessa’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction to the extent that it seeks review of the trial court’s denial of the motion for new trial, but without prejudice to his right to raise the claim of newly-discovered evidence in a separate post-conviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
*1069Affirmed in part, dismissed in part for lack of jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Rosario, 303 So. 3d 555 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Daniels v. State, 712 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1998)
- State v. Bodden, 756 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)