LARRY J. DENNIS, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 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.
Larry Dennis petitioned for habeas corpus after his notice of appeal was filed late, barring appellate review of his conviction. The court held that if the delay was caused by a state official's negligence rather than Dennis's own conduct, a constitutional question might arise regarding denial of appellate rights, and remanded for factual development.
The court held that if Dennis's failure to file timely was not attributable to his own negligence and if Cunningham was a state official or agent whose negligence would constitute state action, a serious constitutional question might exist regarding whether the appeal could be considered via habeas corpus. The court remanded for factual findings on these threshold matters.
[1] A court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal if the notice of appeal is not filed within the time prescribed by law, regardless of who is responsible for the untimel…
[2] Habeas corpus may be an appropriate remedy to address a denial of the right to appeal caused by state action or inaction.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“If the failure of Dennis's notice of appeal to get filed within the requisite period was not attributable to any negligence on the part of Dennis himself and if Cunningham was such a State official or State agent so that the negligence on his part, if any, would be considered as 'State action', a serious question might exist, under prior decisions of the Florida appellate courts, as to whether his appeal could not in fact be considered by this Court by way of habeas corpus.”
Establishes the legal test for when constitutional questions may arise regarding denial of appellate rights due to state official negligence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDennis's notice of appeal was dated June 4, 1969, but was not mailed until June 12, 1969, after the appeal deadline. Dennis had the notice notarized b…
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 State Action cases and more on FLexlaw
Upon petition of Larry J. Dennis, this court on November 17, 1970, issued Rule to respondent director to show cause before this court why Dennis’s petition for writ of habeas corpus should not be granted as prayed. In due course respondent director filed his response to the show cause order.
In a previous appearance of this case in this court, in an opinion by Judge Mann, it was noted that Dennis’s notice of appeal was dated June 4, 1969, seeking to review a judgment and sentence of the Pinellas County Circuit Court entered on May 8, 1969. The notice of appeal was unnecessarily notarized on June 4, 1969. The envelope in which the notice of appeal was mailed to the Circuit Clerk was postmarked June 12, 1969, after the time for appeal had expired. We held that this Court, therefore, was without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal irrespective of whether “the untimely filing” was “attributable to Dennis or to the negligence of personnel in the Division of Corrections.” The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
In the instant proceeding Dennis in his petition for writ of habeas corpus sets forth that the notice of appeal “was drawn on June 4, 1969”; that Dennis “not knowing of the lack of necessity for notarization of said Notice of Appeal, did have his Notice of Appeal notarized by one Cunningham, a Notary Public of the State of Florida and an employee of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, a State agency”; that he, Dennis, “left said Notice of Appeal with Mr. Cunningham after the State official represented to the Petitioner that he would mail Petitioner’s Petition the day of notarization, June 6, 1970”; that “through neglect of his duty or for other reasons unknown to the Petitioner,” Cunningham failed “to mail said Notice of Appeal”; that “by virtue of his position and power, said official did cause the State of Florida to participate in denial of the privilege of appeal to this Petitioner which is, in effect, denial of the constitutional rights guaranteed by the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America”, by virtue of which facts “Petitioner is being restrained of his liberty by the Respondent in violation of the Constitution * * * »
If the failure of Dennis’s notice of appeal to get filed within the requisite period was not attributable to any negligence on the part of Dennis himself and if Cun*183ningham was such a State official or State agent so that the negligence on his part, if any, would be considered as “State action”, a serious question might exist, under prior decisions of the Florida appellate courts, as to whether his appeal could not in fact be considered by this Court by way of habeas corpus. But the facts must first be established.
Accordingly, Honorable Charles M. Phillips of the Pinellas County Circuit Court is hereby appointed Commissioner for this Court, with authority to take such testimony and receive such evidence as may be adduced before him on behalf of the petitioner and also respondent Director with all reasonable dispatch, and to forthwith report the same back to this Court, together with his findings and recommendations thereon. Said Commissioner is also authorized to appoint counsel to represent petitioner in further proceedings herein. All costs properly incurred incident to such proceedings shall be borne by the county of Pinellas. This cause will be held in abeyance here pending filing of such report and recommendations.
LILES and MANN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Trailer Ranch, Inc. v. City OF Pompano Beach, 500 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1986)…A condemning authority exercising the power of eminent domain is not permitted to acquire a greater quantity of property or interest therein than is necessary to serve the public purpose for which the property is acquired. Canal Authority v. Miller, 243 So. 2d 181, 133 (Fla.1970). Article X, section 6 of the Florida Constitution provides that a landowner whose property is taken for a public purpose is entitled to full compensation for what is actually taken. By excluding the city’s evidence sub judice, the tr…
-
Dennis v. Louie L. Wainwright, 247 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…PIERCE, Chief Judge. On January 22, 1971, this Court issued opinion in this cause, 243 So. 2d 181, reciting that a previous notice of appeal dated June 4, 1969, filed on behalf of petitioner Larry J. Dennis seeking to review a judgment and sentence of the Pinellas County Circuit Court entered on May 8, 1969, had been dismissed by this Court on F…