ALBERT LEE HAYES, PETITIONER,
v.
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.
Albert Lee Hayes petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review an adverse criminal conviction judgment from the circuit court. The Florida District Court of Appeal dismissed the petition as untimely because it was filed 76 days after the circuit court denied his petition for rehearing, exceeding the mandatory 60-day statutory deadline, which is a jurisdictional requirement.
The Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition because it was filed beyond the mandatory 60-day deadline. The requirement to file a petition for writ of certiorari within 60 days from rendition of the decision sought to be reviewed is a jurisdictional requirement, and failure to comply is fatal to the petition.
“Under these, application for writ of certiorari must be filed in the district court of appeal within 60 days from rendition of the decision, order, judgment, or decree sought to be reviewed. This is a jurisdictional requirement.”
Establishes that the 60-day filing deadline for certiorari petitions is mandatory and jurisdictional in nature.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHayes was charged with three counts: reckless driving, leaving the scene of an accident, and operating a motor vehicle without proper lights. He was c…
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 Rules Of Appellate Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
Through motion, the State seeks dismissal of the petition for writ of certiorari of Albert Lee Hayes upon the basis that this court lacks jurisdiction because the petition was filed beyond the prescribed 60 day period.
Petitioner, charged in three counts of an information with 1. reckless driving of a motor vehicle, 2. leaving the scene of the accident, and 3. operating a motor vehicle without proper lights, was tried in the Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County and adjudged guilty under each count. He was sentenced to a period of six months on the second count, with sentence on the first and third counts being deferred “from day to day and term to term.” On appeal of petitioner to the cir*672cuit court, the judgment of conviction was reversed on the first count but was affirmed in all other respects. Presented for review before this court is the judgment of affirmance.
Dates necessary for consideration in disposing of the question here reveal that the judgment of the circuit court challenged was rendered on October 5, 1962, and recorded on the same day; on December 18, 1962, the circuit court entered its order denying petition for rehearing; on March 4, 1963, petition for writ of certiorari was filed in the office of the clerk of this court. Thus, through mathematical computation, 76 days intervened from the time of the circuit court’s order denying the petition for rehearing to the time of the filing of petition for writ of certiorari.
As applied to the situation here, reference may be had to the statutory provision and appellate rule relating to the time for filing of petition for writ of cer-tiorari. Under these, application for writ of certiorari must be filed in the district court of appeal within 60 days from rendition of the decision, order, judgment, or decree sought to be reviewed. This is a jurisdictional requirement. Where more than the specified 60 days have elapsed between date of denial of petition for rehearing and filing of application for certiorari, petition for certiorari will be dismissed. 31 F.S.A.Florida Appellate Rules, rule 4.S, subd. c(l) ; F.S.A. § 59.-08; also see Russom v. State, Fla.1959, 109 So.2d 30. In the instant case, the appeal had already been taken, and the method resorted to here is for further review via petition for writ of certiorari.
Motion to dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari interposed by the State must be and is granted because of the fatal jurisdictional deficiency.
Dismissed.
SHANNON, C. J., and KANNER and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pressley v. Louie L. Wainwright, 367 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1979)…la.1954); Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Mack, 64 So. 2d 304, 307 (Fla.1952); State Dept. of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Adams, 338 So. 2d 542, 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Flinchbaugh v. Burton, 312 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Hayes v. State, 151 So. 2d 671, 672 (Fla.2d DCA 1963); Harris v. Condermann, 113 So. 2d 235, 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). . See, e. g., Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 91 n.14, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977); Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 512, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 1…
-
Clark Merrill v. Metro. Dade Cnty. Water & Sewer Bd., 253 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Hayes v. State, Fla.App.1963, 151 So. 2d 671; Meiklejohn v. American Distributors, Inc., Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 259; Rules 1.1, 1.3, 4.1, 4.5(c), 4.7, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.…
Authorities Cited
- Russom v. State, 109 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1959)