ISIDORO COTTO ROLON, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether Criminal Procedure Rule I appeals must be filed within 60 or 90 days. The Court held that appeals from orders denying Rule I relief filed after June 29, 1965 must be brought within 60 days, establishing a prospective rule change that applied to the petitioner's appeal.
The Court held that the time limit for appealing Rule I denials is 90 days if the order was entered on or before June 29, 1965, and 60 days if entered after that date. The District Court correctly dismissed the petitioner's appeal because the order denying Rule I relief was entered July 12, 1965 (after June 29, 1965), and the notice of appeal was filed September 20, 1965 (more than 60 days later).
“the time for taking an appeal from an order denying relief under Rule I was 90 days if the order was entered on or before June 29, 1965, and 60 days if the order was entered after June 29, 1965”
Establishes the bright-line prospective rule for determining the applicable appeal deadline based on the entry date of the Rule I denial order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Isidoro Cotto Rolon filed a motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule I, which was denied on July 12, 1965. He filed a notice of appe…
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 Obiter Dictum cases and more on FLexlaw
By petition for a writ of habeas corpus, we are called upon to consider whether 60 or 90 days should be allowed for taking an appeal from an order denying relief under Criminal Procedure Rule I, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.
The petitioner filed a motion for relief under Rule I, which was denied on July 12, 1965. He filed a notice of appeal from this denial on September 20, 1965. The District Court of Appeal, Second District, initially accepted this appeal. Later, on motion of the State, the appeal was dismissed, 197 So.2d 611, because it was not filed within 60 days from the order denying Rule I relief. The petitioner now contends that he should have been allowed 90 days to appeal and that the District Court erred in its dismissal.
In order to resolve the question presented, we shall briefly trace the chronology of several decisions. In one of our first opinions following the promulgation of Rule I, we state, through obiter dictum, that the appeal time from Rule I denials “shall be that governing criminal appeals,” i. e., 90 days. Roy v. Wainwright, 151 So.2d 825, 828 (Fla.1963). This statement was made in the light of our view that Rule I relief should be governed by the general principles applicable to habeas corpus cases. State v. Weeks, 166 So.2d 892 (Fla.1964). An earlier decision by this Court held that habeas corpus appeals would be controlled by the time allowed for criminal appeals. Snell v. Mayo, 80 So.2d 330 (Fla.1955). In Crownover v. Shannon, 170 So.2d 299 (Fla.1964) we receded from Snell and held that, prospectively, the appeal time in habeas corpus cases would be the same as that allowed in civil cases, i. e., 60 days. Reasoning from the above cases, the First District Court of Appeal held in Barton v. State, 176 So.2d 597 (DCA 1, Fla.App.1965), that the appeal time in Rule I cases should be 60 days. This decision was given prospective application only, because there was ample justification for relying on the 90-day rule which previously prevailed. We cited the Barton opinion with approval in State ex rel. Faircloth v. District Court of Appeal, 194 So.2d 600 (Fla.1966). In the Faircloth decision, we allowed several appeals filed more than 60 but less than 90 days from the Rule I denials, because all the orders denying Rule I relief were entered prior to the effective date of Barton, June 29, 1965. But in Lawrence v. State, 198 So.2d 328 (Fla.1967), we held an appeal was properly dismissed when the order denying Rule I relief was entered on June 30, 1965, one day after Barton, and the notice of appeal was filed on September 10, 1965, more than 60 but less than 90 days from the date of the order.
The effect of the Faircloth and Lawrence decisions was to establish the following rule: the time for taking an appeal from an order denying relief under Rule I was 90 days if the order was entered on or before June 29, 1965, and 60 days if the order was entered after June 29, 1965. *543Applying this rule to the instant case, it can be seen that the District Court correctly dismissed Rolon’s appeal.
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is therefore denied.
It is so ordered.
O’CONNELL, C. J., and ROBERTS, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Weeks, 166 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1964)
- Jetson ROY v. Louie L. Wainwright, 151 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1963)
- Crownover v. The Honorable George T. Shannon, 170 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1964)
- Chambers v. State, 176 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Snell v. Mayo, 80 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1955)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Earl Faircloth v. The Dist. Court OF Appeal IN & FOR the First Dist., 194 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1966)
- Price v. Miami Extruders, Inc., 198 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 1967)
- Lawrence v. State, 198 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 1967)
- Isidoro Coito Rolon v. State, 197 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Wilton Manors Nat'l Bank v. Doris Robinson Holding Co. & John Dec, 197 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)