DAVID JOHN LETT, 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.
The denial of a motion for rehearing in a proceeding under Criminal Procedure Rule #1 is not an appealable order.
Appellant, after being convicted of robbery and having his initial appeal affirmed, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus treated as a motion to …
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 Appealability Of Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
On May 15, 1964, an information was filed in the office of the Clerk of the Criminal Court of Record, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, charging appellant with robbery. Subsequently appellant was arraigned, tried by a jury, found guilty and sentenced to serve six months to ten years in the Florida State Prison. On July 14, 1964, appellant filed his motion for a new trial which was denied. On October 2, 1964, the appellant filed his notice of appeal in this court. In a per curiam opinion this court affirmed appellant’s conviction and sentence. See Lett v. State, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 568.
On July 7, 1966 appellant in proper person filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus which was treated as a motion to set aside and. vacate judgment and sentence under Criminal Procedure Rule #1 and after hearing thereon the trial court entered an order denying said motion.
Appellant was represented by counsel at every essential stage in each of the above described proceedings.
On August 18, 1966, appellant filed a “supplemental rule #1 petition — petition for rehearing.” This'petition was properly treated as a petition for rehearing and denied on September 6, 1966.
Appellant appeals the order denying this motion for rehearing.
It is well settled that a proceeding under Criminal Procedure Rule #1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, is civil rather than criminal in nature. See State v. Weeks, Fla. 1964, 166 So.2d 892. Therefore, the rules governing’ the appealability of orders and judgments under Criminal Procedure Rule #1 are delineated by the Florida Appellate Rules. An order denying appellant’s petition for rehearing is not an appealable order. See Florida Living for the Retired, Inc. v. Retirement Hotel Associates, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 83; Oxford v. Polk Federal Savings & Loan Association of Lakeland, Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d 603, and cases cited therein.
Therefore appellant’s appeal from an order denying his motion for rehearing is dismissed.
SHANNON, A. C. J., and LILES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carter v. State, 242 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…ly with the validity of his arrest, an impermissible ground for challenge in a motion for post-conviction relief.5 The judgment appealed herein is affirmed. CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and SPECTOR, J., concur. . Lett v. State (Fla.App.1967) 195 So. 2d 608, 609. . Eggers v. Narron (Fla.1970) 238 So. 2d 72; Gissendanner v. State (Fla.1970), 241 So. 2d 162, Opinion on rehearing filed November 12, 1970. .Carter v. State (Fla.App.1970) 231 So. 2d 16. . Chavigny v. State (Fla.App.1964) 163 So. 2d 47, 50…
-
State v. Lasley, 507 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…nal prosecution which resulted in the judgment of conviction, notwithstanding the inclusion of rule 3.850 within the criminal rules. Green v. State, 280 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Tolar v. State, 196 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); Lett v. State, 195 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(b), not 9.140(c)(2), controls, and affords the prospective appellant thirty days to file his notice of appeal. The state filed its notice within these time limits. Appellees also argue…
-
Martin v. Pafford, 583 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…learly are not. A postconviction proceeding is collateral to the criminal action under attack, independent of the original prosecution, Heilmann v. State, 310 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), and is civil in nature rather than criminal. Lett v. State, 195 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). Next, a direct appeal in a criminal proceeding, unlike appeals from civil proceedings as in Zakak and Diaz, generally does not establish whether there was any actionable error by the trial attorney. See State v. Barber, 301 So.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Weeks, 166 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1964)
- Lett v. State, 174 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Oxford v. Polk Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Lakeland, 147 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Fla. Living FOR THE Retired, Inc. v. Ret. Hotel Assocs., Inc., 167 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)