THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD FLAVE SHEDAKER, 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.
Florida appealed the trial court's order quashing a criminal information (indictment). The appellate court held that the appeal time runs from the formal written order, not from an unsigned minute book entry reflecting an oral ruling, and therefore the appeal was timely.
The appeal is timely. An unsigned minute book entry is insufficient to commence the running of appeal time in either civil or criminal matters. The time for appealing runs from the formal written order being 'entered,' which must be considered the same as 'rendition' of an order under the appellate rules.
“an unsigned minute book entry is not sufficient to commence the running of an appeal time in a civil case. If this be true, then certainly it should not be sufficient to commence the running of an appeal time in a criminal matter.”
Establishes the core holding that unsigned minute book entries do not start the appeal period.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant Shedaker moved to quash the criminal information in Dade County Criminal Court of Record. The trial judge orally granted the motion on J…
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
ON MOTION TO DISMISS
In a criminal proceeding pending in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida, the appellee [as defendant therein] moved to quash the information, which motion was orally granted by the court and a docket entry of such ruling was duly noted on January 11, 1966. Thereafter, the court entered a formal written order granting the defendant’s motion to quash on February 11, 1966, which was duly recorded in a minute book at an appropriate page on said date. Within thirty days of February 11, 1966, the State filed its notice of appeal pursuant to the provisions of §§ 924.07(1), 924.10, Fla. Stat., F.S.A., and Rule 6.3, Florida Appellate Rules, 37 F.S.A., seeking review of the trial judge’s order on the motion to *430quash. Within the tune prescribed by the rules, the appellee in this court filed a motion to dismiss the appeal contending that same was untimely because it was not taken from the date of the unsigned entry in the minute book of the trial judge’s oral pronouncement.
We requested counsel to submit briefs in support of their respective positions. Following the receipt of same, we have examined the authorities therein contained and the opinion of the Second District Court of Appeal in Egantoff v. Herring, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 260, and the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida in State ex rel. Herring v. Allen, Fla.1966, 189 So.2d 363 (opinion filed May 25, 1966). These cases hold that an unsigned minute book entry is not sufficient to commence the running of an appeal time in a civil case. If this be true, then certainly it should not be sufficient to commence the running of an appeal time in a criminal matter.
We have not overlooked the opinion of the Second District Court of Appeal in Gossett v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 188 So.2d 836, but with due respect decline to follow the holding therein. In determining this question, we have attempted to consider Rules 1.3, 3.2(b), 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3, Florida Appellate Rules, in pari materia and reach the conclusion that “entered” as used in Rule 6.3, Florida Appellate Rules, must be considered the same as “rendition” in Rule 3.2(b), Florida Appellate Rules. If this not be so, then the abatement periods provided for in Rule 1.3, Florida Appellate Rules, to wit: “timely and proper motion or petition for a new trial, * * * ” will not be effective for tolling of the time for taking an appeal in a criminal matter pending review of a motion for new trial. Further, to hold that a minute book entry would control over a written order [which would be the ultimate impact of Gossett v. State, supra] would lead to nothing but confusion. It appears that the better practice would be for formal written orders to be entered in criminal matters for the purpose of commencing the running of an appeal time, the same as in civil causes.
Therefore, the motion to dismiss here under review will be denied.
Motion to dismiss denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 324 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1975)…188 So. 2d 836 (Fla.App. 2d 1966), wherein that court declined to apply the harmonization of these two terms in Florida Appellate Rule 1.3 to criminal cases. Conversely, we expressly approved the Third District Court’s decision in State v. Shedaker, 190 So. 2d 429 (Fla.App. 3d 1966), in which the latter court stated that the rule’s harmonization of these terms applied equally to civil and criminal cases. Jenkins v. Lyles, supra, at 742 n. 6. This is the settled construction of these two terms in this jurisdic…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Earl Faircloth v. Hon. Spencer C. Cross, 238 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1970)…. The attempt to review this order by a Notice of Appeal from an oral order pronounced several pays prior thereto is wholly ineffective to confer jurisdiction on the District Court.” (page 742). The Court approved the decision in State v. Shedaker, 190 So. 2d 429 (Fla.App.3rd, 1966) and overruled the decision in Gossett v. State, 188 So. 2d 836 (Fla.App.2nd, 1966). In the case sub judice, the District Court was without jurisdiction to entertain direct appellate proceedings. The respondents are prohibited fr…
-
Eli S. Jenkins v. Hon. Woody A. Lyles, 223 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1969)…2d 601 (Fla.1967). . Rule 1.030(a), Fla.R.Crim.P., 33 F.S.A. see Maryland, D. & V. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 129 Md. 412, 99 A. 600 (1916), and Hobart v. Hobart, 45 Iowa 501 (1877), for a discussion of what constitutes “Open Court.” . State v. Shedaker, 190 So. 2d 429 (Fla.App.1966). This case recognizes the conflict with Gossett v. State, 188 So. 2d 836 (Fla.App.1966) but observes that it “declinéis] to follow the holding therein.” We agree with the decision of the Third District in Shedaker. . Rule 1.190(f), F…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Egantoff v. Herring, 177 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Ann Allen Herring v. Honorable William P. Allen, 189 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1966)
- Gossett v. State, 188 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)