STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
J. LEONARD DIAMOND, 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 Florida Supreme Court held that an order sustaining a defendant's motion to quash an information is appealable under F.S. Section 924.07, rejecting the State's argument that such orders are not appealable. The court also determined that subsequent orders attempting to amend the quashing order were nullities because the trial court lost jurisdiction.
The court held that an order sustaining a motion to quash the information is appealable under Section 924.07. The court concluded that subsequent orders attempting to amend the original order were nullities because the trial court lost jurisdiction once the motion to quash was sustained.
“We hold the order is appealable under the provisions of Section 924.07. This conclusion is inescapable when Section 924.07 is considered alongside Section 909.05”
Establishes that orders sustaining motions to quash are appealable orders under the statute
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court issued an order on September 3rd, 1965, granting the defendant's motion to quash the information. The State attempted to appeal this o…
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 Motion To Quash Information cases and more on FLexlaw
The basic question involved in this motion to dismiss the State’s appeal taken pursuant to the provisions of F.S. Section 924.07, F.S.A., is whether the order of September 3rd, 1965, the pertinent portions of which read as follows, viz.:
“THIS CAUSE having come on for hearing upon the Defendant’s Motion to ■Quash the Information, and the Court having heard arguments of respective counsel for the Defendant and the State, * * *, it is thereupon
“CONSIDERED and ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Quash be, and the same is hereby, granted.”
-'is an appealable order under the foregoing ■statute. The State takes the position that ■the order is not appealable because it merely sustains the motion to quash and does not, in fact, quash the information. It is conceded by the parties that if the above ■ order is an appealable order under the statute above, the notice of appeal herein was filed too late to vest jurisdiction in •this Court.
We hold the order is appealable under the provisions of Section 924.07. This conclusion is inescapable when Section 924.07 is considered alongside Section 909.05 ■which provides:
“If the motion to quash is sustained the court may order that another information be filed * * *. If such order is not made * * * the defendant, if in custody, shall be discharged therefrom, unless he is in custody on -some other charge; if he has been released on bail he and his sureties are exonerated, and if money or bonds have been deposited as bail such money or bonds shall be refunded.”
The subsequent orders purporting to amend the original order of September 3rd were nullities, the trial court having lost jurisdiction of the cause.
The motion to dismiss is granted.
ROBERTS, DREW, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
THORNAL, C. J., agrees to conclusion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cleveland Hollingshead v. Louie L. Wainwright, 194 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1967)…t case, this Court on July 29, 1966 appointed Honorable Woodrow M. Melvin, Circuit Judge of the First Judicial Circuit, commissioner to take testimony upon the factual issues presented [*578] by the Petitioner. (See Hollingshead v. Wainwright, Fla., 188 So. 2d 788.) Upon consideration of the report submitted by the able commissioner in which he found the allegations of the Petitioner to be true in point of fact and recommended an appellate review of Petitioner’s conviction, it is our opinion that due process…
-
State v. Chapman Levi Creighton, 469 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 1985)…s of Florida continued to operate under the assumption that the state’s right of appeal in criminal cases was governed by statute. See, e.g., Carroll v. State, 251 So. 2d 866 (Fla.1971); Jenkins v. Lyles, 223 So. 2d 740 (Fla.1969); State v. Diamond, 188 So. 2d 788, 789 (Fla.1966); State v. Harris, 136 So. 2d 633 (Fla.1962); State v. Schroeder, 112 So. 2d 257 (Fla.1959); State v. Shouse, 177 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); Balikes v. Speleos, 173 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). Cases decided after the 1972 revis…
-
State v. Herzig, 208 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 1968)…s v. People of the State of California, supra. [Douglas v. People of the State of California, 1963, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811] Hollingshead v. Wainwright, 1966 [Fla., 177 So. 2d 477], 384 U.S. 31, 86 S.Ct. 1284, 16 L.Ed.2d 333 [Fla., 188 So. 2d 788; 194 So. 2d 577], As a result it would appear that now any indigent found guilty of a felony in a trial court is entitled, as a matter of right, to counsel not only on direct appeal but also on appeal from a denial of post-conviction relief. By anal…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence