SYLVESTER THOMAS, 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.
The trial court properly denied a motion for a new trial filed outside the jurisdictional time limit.
Appellant was convicted of Grand Larceny and later moved for a new trial based on witness perjury. The motion was filed after the statutory time limit…
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 Motion For New Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was convicted of Grand Larceny by a jury on September 5, 1968. On October 17, 1969, appellant moved for a new trial based on an admission of perjury from the chief witness against appellant at trial. The trial court denied the motion based on lack of jurisdiction. Appellant appeals this denial.
The time limit for filing a motion for a new trial is at most 15 days, F.R.Cr. P. 1.590, 33 F.S.A. This time limit is jurisdictional and strictly enforced. The trial court has no discretion to grant the motion after the expiration of the time limit. Farrior v. State, Fla.1954, 76 So.2d 148; Long v. State, Fla.1957, 96 So.2d 897; Miller v. State, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 513; Murray v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 292.
Since the motion in this case was made without the time limit it was proper to dismiss the motion without hearing the merits. We affirm.
This decision shall operate without prejudice to appellant to pursue relief through appropriate channels, such as F.R.Cr.P. 1.850.
Affirmed.
OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tafero v. State, 406 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…that such a motion be made within four days, or, with the court’s permission, within fifteen days, after rendition of the verdict.3 The time limit provided in the rule is jurisdictional. Hallman v. State, 371 So. 2d 482 (Fla.1979); Thomas v. State, 250 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Murray v. State, 191 So. 2d 292 (Fla.3d DCA 1966). Most certainly, Tafero’s motion came too late to entitle him to relief under this rule. Equally certain is that the trial court could not obviate this jurisdictional impediment…
-
Lebowitz v. State, 313 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…n the alleged contact between a juror and a witness) was filed untimely. Therefore, this matter has not been preserved for óur consideration on appeal at this time. See, Thompson v. State, Fla.App.1974, 300 So. 2d 301; Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1971, 250 So. 2d 308. We would observe that in order to set aside a jury verdict due to misconduct, the alleged misconduct must be shown to have influenced the verdict and to have caused injury to the complaining party. Russom v. State, Fla.App. 1958, 105 So. 2d 380. T…
-
State v. Farmer, 384 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…Farrior v. State, 76 So. 2d 148 (Fla.1954); State v. Morris, 359 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 365 So. 2d 713 (Fla.1978); State v. Pinto, 273 So. 2d 408 (Fla.3d DCA 1973), cert. dismissed, 283 So. 2d 367 (Fla.1973); Thomas v. State, 250 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Clark v. State, 176 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); Miller v. State, 134 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961). In the instant case, the verdict was rendered on October 18, 1974, and the motion to reconsider the degree of guilt was file…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Murray v. State, 191 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Farrior v. State, 76 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1954)
- Miller v. State, 134 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Long v. State, 96 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1957)