JAMES WHITE, JR., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
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.
White and other appellants sought review of a judgment in a criminal case, initially filing an appeal from an order denying a post-trial motion to discharge. The court held that the amended notice of appeal properly seeking review of the final judgment was valid, rejecting the State's motion to dismiss the appeal on technical notice deficiencies.
The amended notice of appeal is valid and the motion to dismiss must be denied. Where a timely post-trial motion is filed, the final judgment is not deemed rendered until that motion is disposed of, allowing the entire case to be reviewable within thirty days. Technical deficiencies in the notice of appeal are not jurisdictional and are not grounds for dismissal unless the complaining party is misled or prejudiced.
[1] A final judgment is rendered when a timely and proper post-trial motion is disposed of, even if the notice of appeal initially targets only the order denying that motion.
[2] An amended notice of appeal is valid if deficiencies in the original notice did not mislead or prejudice the complaining party.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Where there has been filed in the lower court a timely and proper motion or petition for a new trial, for a rehearing, or other timely post-trial motion or petition permitted by the Rules, the decision, judgment, order or decree shall not be deemed rendered until such motion or petition is disposed of.”
Establishes the rule that a post-trial motion delays the rendition of a final judgment, extending the time period for appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants filed a post-trial motion to discharge based on claimed denial of speedy trial, which repeated a motion made and denied orally at trial…
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 Post-Trial Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION TO DISMISS
The original notice of appeal was filed within thirty days of the filing of an order denying a post-trial “Motion to Dis*361charge.” That motion was based on a claimed denial of speedy trial, repeated a motion made and denied orally at the outset of trial, and was a proper motion in the nature of a petition for rehearing. F.A.R. 1.3, 32 F.S.A., provides that “Where there has been filed in the lower court a timely and proper motion or petition for a new trial, for a rehearing, or other timely post-trial motion or petition permitted by the Rules, the decision, judgment, order or decree shall not be deemed rendered until such motion or petition is disposed of.” Thus at the time of filing the notice of appeal purporting to seek review of the order denying the motion to discharge the defendants, the entire case was reviewable because the final judgment, by then well over thirty days old, had been “rendered” within thirty days. F.A.R. 6.2, referring specifically to criminal appeals, requires appeal within thirty days after the judgment is “entered,” but entry seems understandably to have been treated as the equivalent of “rendition,” the word used in F.A.R. 3.2. See State ex rel. Faircloth v. Cross, Fla.1970, 238 So.2d 81 (per Adkins, J.).
The question now becomes whether the amended notice of appeal, which sought to review the final judgment, is valid. It is. F.A.R. 3.2(c) provides that “Deficiencies in form or substance in the notice of appeal shall not be jurisdictional and shall not be ground for dismissal of the appeal unless it be clearly shown that the complaining party was misled or prejudiced by such deficiencies.” The State does not claim prejudice, and none appears. Allowing the amended notice to stand is in harmony with State ex rel. Poe v. Allen, Fla.1967, 196 So.2d 745 at 746, in which Mr. Justice Drew’s opinion quotes approvingly 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1302.1:
“ ‘Where the appeal is erroneously taken from the order denying the motion, rather than from the judgment, the sound course undoubtedly is to treat this technical error as harmless, and to consider
the appeal as if it were from the judgment.’ ”
See also 6A Moore, Federal Practice § 59.-15.
An appellant in a criminal proceeding is no less entitled to the interpretation which will result in the just consideration of his claims.
Motion denied.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and Mc-NULTY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 324 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1975)…hese terms applied equally to civil and criminal cases. Jenkins v. Lyles, supra, at 742 n. 6. This is the settled construction of these two terms in this jurisdiction. State ex rel. Faircloth v. Cross, supra; Jenkins v. Lyles, supra; White v. State, 267 So. 2d 360 (Fla.App.2d 1972). Thus, it must be realized that for appellate purposes the use of the terms “rendered, render or rendition” and “enter or entered” are synonymous and their respective use in the appellate rules is to be considered to be the definit…
-
Robustiano Puga & Medmold, Inc. v. Suave Shoe Corp., 417 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…for any inadequacies of the notice. * * * ’ [Hulen v. Amer. Oil Co., Mo.App.1962, 360 S.W. 2d 726; Clark v. Dubbs, Mo.App.1962, 360 S.W. 2d 288.]” [emphasis added]. Id. at 746-47. This rule, in turn, has been explicitly followed in White v. State, 267 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), and implicitly followed in Bowen v. Bowen, 352 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), dismissed, 360 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 1980), and Rosen v. Hunter, 224 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), so as to treat, as here, a notice of appeal taken from…
-
Jerravonnie L. Jackson v. State, 834 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…d pleadings filed within the 30 day appeal period are sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the appellate court). The state also concedes that it will not be prejudiced if the notice of inquiry is treated as a timely notice of appeal. White v. State, 267 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972) (deficiencies in form or substance in the notice of appeal are not jurisdictional and are not a basis for dismissal of the appeal unless it is clearly shown that the complaining party was misled or prejudiced by the deficiencies).…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Alfred Gordon POE & Doris v. Poe, 196 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 1967)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Earl Faircloth v. Hon. Spencer C. Cross, 238 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1970)