ODELL BLAKELY, JR., 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.
Odell Blakely appealed from a trial court's order denying his motion to vacate a guilty plea and sentence for manslaughter. The appellate court dismissed the appeal sua sponte because Blakely filed his notice of appeal 79 days after the order was entered, exceeding the 60-day deadline for appeals from Rule 1 motions.
The appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because Blakely filed his notice of appeal beyond the 60-day deadline required for appeals from Rule 1 motions. Appeals from Rule 1 motions are governed by civil appellate rules, which require notice of appeal within 60 days, not the 90-day period applicable to criminal appeals.
“Appeals from orders denying motions under Rule 1 are governed by the appellate rules pertaining to appeals in civil cases, rather than criminal cases. Thus, appeals must be taken in this class of cases within sixty days from the entry of the order appealed from, rather than ninety days as in a criminal appeal.”
Establishes that Rule 1 motion appeals are governed by civil appellate rules with a 60-day deadline rather than the 90-day criminal deadline.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBlakely was charged with manslaughter in the negligent handling of a pistol that caused the death of Juanita Yant. He declined public defender represe…
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 Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 cases and more on FLexlaw
Odell Blakely, Jr., defendant in the Court below, was charged in an amended information with the offense of manslaughter in the handling of a pistol in such a negligent and reckless manner as to cause the pistol to shoot and kill one Juanita Yant.
Minute entries of the Court below contained in the record here indicate he effectively declined representation by the local public defender tendered him by the Court on June 28, 1965, and did thereupon at said time plead guilty to said charge. On September 20, 1965, defendant was adjudged guilty of the offense of manslaughter and sentenced to serve ten years in the State Prison.
Thereafter, on October 11, 1965, without having previously filed any other motion or pleading subsequent to the adjudication and sentence, defendant filed his motion under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, asking the trial Court to set aside said judgment and sentence and to permit him to withdraw his plea of guilty and that “the cause proceed to trial”.1 The County Solicitor filed a written response to the motion, whereupon the trial Judge had a full hearing upon the issues raised by the motion and response, and heard testimony under oath from numerous witnesses for the defendant and the State. This was on November 23, 1965. On November 24, 1965, the trial Court entered order denying the motion and relief therein prayed.
On February 11, 1966, defendant filed his notice of appeal to this Court from said order of November 24, 1965. The appeal was perfected and the cause has been fully briefed upon the merits by both sides, the defendant being represented by privately retained, competent counsel, who prepared the motion to vacate and has continued to represent defendant at all times to this date.
We find that we must dismiss this appeal sua sponte because the notice of appeal was filed seventy-nine days after entry of the order appealed from. Appeals from orders denying motions under Rule 1 are governed by the appellate rules pertaining to appeals in civil cases, rather than criminal cases. Thus, appeals must be taken in this class of cases within sixty days from the entry of the order appealed from, rather than ninety days as in a criminal appeal. Where the notice of appeal is filed on a date beyond the time allowed, the appellate processes are not activated. This Court is therefore without jurisdiction. Barton v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 597; State v. Weeks, Fla.1964, 166 So.2d 892; Crownover v. Shannon, Fla.1964, 170 So.2d 299; and Young v. State, Fla.App. *6121965, 177 So.2d 535. All these cases were decided and the opinions issued prior to the date notice of appeal was filed herein and, in fact, prior to the filing by defendant of his motion to vacate.
Appeal dismissed sua sponte.
LILES, Acting C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Strachen v. State, 380 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…points on appeal, the appellant attempts to urge error in two rulings of the trial court on November 13, 1978, in denying 3.850 motions in Cases Nos. 74-7485 and 74-7486. The notice of appeal comes too late as to these orders. See: Blakely v. State, 191 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); Fuller v. Wainwright, 238 So. 2d 65 (Fla.1970). Turning to the only valid points relating to the April 4, 1979 order, (1) that the court erred in failure to return him to the sex offender program,1 and (2) that even if the appel…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Weeks, 166 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1964)
- Crownover v. The Honorable George T. Shannon, 170 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1964)
- Chambers v. State, 176 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Fowler v. Midstate Hauling Co., 177 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)