STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES WRIGHT, 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 granted certiorari to address conflicting interpretations of Rule 6.16(b) regarding whether a motion for new trial is a prerequisite to appellate review of evidence sufficiency in criminal cases. The Court held that such a motion is required, overruling the District Court's contrary language while affirming the underlying conviction.
The Florida Supreme Court held that Rule 6.16(b) does require filing a motion for new trial based on alleged insufficiency of evidence as a prerequisite to appellate review of evidence sufficiency, with the only exception being cases in which a criminal defendant is sentenced to death.
“a motion for new trial, duly filed and ruled upon, is not an indispensable prerequisite to review by the appellate Court of the sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case to sustain the judgment appealed, provided such alleged insufficiency is included in the assignments of error.”
The language from the District Court opinion that the Florida Supreme Court found to be in error and subsequently expunged.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Wright was convicted in trial court. The District Court of Appeal, Second District, affirmed his conviction in Wright v. State, 216 So. 2d 229 (…
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.
By writ of certiorari the Attorney General seeks to have this Court expunge certain language construing Rule 6.16, subd. b, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A., which appeared in a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, styled as Wright v. State, 216 So.2d 229 (1968). Since Wright itself sets out in detail the rationale behind the District Court’s Construction of the rule, we will limit ourselves here to a discussion of the Attorney General’s position.
The language sought to be expunged is as follows:
“So we must, and do, hold that a motion for new trial, duly filed and ruled upon, is not an indispensable prerequisite to review by the appellate Court of the sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case to sustain the judgment appealed, provided such alleged insufficiency is included in the assignments of error. In the case sub judice, grounds 4, 5 and 6 each raise the point. Therefore, the sufficiency of evidence to prove the specific intent to steal or unlawfully use the automobiles is open for our consideration.”
The Attorney General has no quarrel with the ultimate decision announced by *301the District Court, namely, the affirmance of Wright’s conviction. However, the Attorney General contends that the above language, which admittedly is dicta, squarely places the Wright case in direct conflict with numerous decisions of other Florida appellate courts. He fears that this conflict will create confusion as to the proper interpretation of Rule 6.16, subd. b. The cases cited for jurisdictional conflict are: Gilbert v. State, 148 Fla. 293, 4 So.2d 330 (1941); Jones v. State, 212 So.2d 804 (1st DCA 1968); Kimble v. State, 208 So.2d 471 (1st DCA 1968); and Smith v. State, 194 So.2d 310 (1st DCA 1967). Each of these cases holds that the sufficiency of the evidence cannot be asserted as a ground for reversal in an appellate court unless the appellant has previously filed a motion for new trial, based on alleged insufficiency of the evidence, with the trial court. We accepted jurisdiction on the basis of the obvious conflict between the above cases and Wright.
The Judges of the District Court were not unaware of the fact that their interpretation of Rule 6.16, subd. b as announced in Wright was in conflict with numerous other Florida cases. They enunciated their decision only after a detailed analysis of cases which the Attorney General presented to them in opposition to their ruling.
After hearing oral argument and carefully considering the briefs, we are of the opinion that the interpretation of Rule 6. 16, subd. b advanced by the District Court is in error. The Attorney General is .correct in his assertion that the rule continues to require the filing of a motion for new trial based on an alleged insufficiency of the evidence as a prerequisite to any questioning of the sufficiency of the evidence upon appeal. The only exception provided for in the Rule is, of course, a case in which a criminal defendant is sentenced to death.
We, therefore, hold that the portion of the District Court’s opinion in Wright set out in quotation above is in error and should be, and hereby is, expunged and .held for naught. This expurgation shall have no effect on the District Court’s af-firmance of Wright’s trial court conviction.
It is so ordered.
ERVIN, C. J., DREW and ADKINS, JJ-, and CULVER SMITH, Circuit Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (34 total)
-
State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1974)….A., on the basis of direct conflict between the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in this cause, reported at 286 So. 2d 23 (1973); Mancini v. State, 273 So. 2d 371 (Fla.1973); State v. Owens, 233 So. 2d 389 (Fla.1970); State v. Wright, 224 So. 2d 300 (Fla.1969); Chester v. State, 276 So. 2d 76 (Fla.App.2d 1973). Respondents were convicted of two counts of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny, and were sentenced to two years imprisonment. On appeal, they alleged that they ha…
-
Mancini v. State, 273 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1973)…efendant was found guilty and sentenced to three months in the County Jail plus two months’ probation. Notice of appeal was filed October 21, 1969. On October 11, 1971, the district court affirmed the conviction, per curiam, citing State v. Wright, 224 So. 2d 300 (Fla.1969) and Florida Appellate Rule 3.5(c), 32 F.S. A. The citation of this authority indicates that the district court’s affirmance was based on the fact that defendant had failed to file a motion for new trial as essential for a review of the su…
-
Reis v. State, 248 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…tion for new trial. In all cases, except death sentences, the defendant must file a motion for new trial alleging insufficiency of the evidence as a prerequisite to questioning the sufficiency of the evidence upon appeal. State v. Wright, Fla. 1969, 224 So. 2d 300. The defendant has not brought a sufficient record on appeal to clearly demonstrate reversible error on this point. Jarvis v. State, 115 Fla. 320, 156 So. 310 (1934); and Timmons v. State, 97 Fla. 23, 119 So. 393 (1929). Although not required to do…
Previewing 3 of 34 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gilbert v. State, 4 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1941)
- Smith v. State, 194 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Wright v. State, 216 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Kimble v. State, 208 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- Jones v. State, 212 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)