JERRY DWIGHT TROLINGER, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal addressed a procedural motion requiring the State to provide notice of factual disputes in its appellate brief. The court held that while Supreme Court rules require the appellee to specifically identify any disputed facts with reference to the record, the State's blanket acceptance language does not satisfy this requirement, and the court will assume no factual dispute exists unless the State specifically states otherwise.
The motion to require the State to furnish notice of factual dispute is denied. The court will assume there is no factual dispute unless the appellee specifically identifies one with reference to the record, as required by the rules. The State's blanket acceptance language does not constitute proper notice of disputed facts.
[1] An appellee's brief must specifically state any disagreement with the appellant's statement of facts and provide record references for any corrections or amplifications.
[2] An appellee's failure to specifically dispute factual statements in an appellant's brief may lead the court to assume there is no factual dispute.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The brief of appellee shall be prepared in the same manner as the brief of appellant and in addition thereto shall contain: (1) A statement of the case and of the points involved, if the appellee disagrees with the statement of appellant. (2) A statement of the facts which are necessary to correct or amplify the statement in appellant's brief insofar as it is deemed erroneous or inadequate, with reference to pages of the record-on-appeal.”
Establishes the Supreme Court rule requiring specific identification of factual disputes by the appellee
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State filed an appellate brief in a criminal case that included a statement accepting the appellant's statement of facts "except where not support…
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.
MANN, Chief Judge.
ON MOTION TO REQUIRE STATE TO FURNISH NOTICE OF FACTUAL DISPUTE
In its briefs the State “accepts appellant’s statement of the case and statement of the facts except where not supported by the record on appeal and except those portions that are specifically referred to in the text of this brief.” Briefs in criminal cases are required by Rule 6.11 F.A.R. 32 F.S.A., to be prepared as required by Rule 3.7. Rule 3.7(f)(3) requires the appellant to furnish in his brief “[a] statement of the case and of the facts and points involved, in a clear and concise manner, with reference to the pages of the appendix, and also to the pages of the original record where there is any possibility that appellee may question the statement.” Rule 3.7(g) states that:
“The brief of appellee shall be prepared in the same manner as the brief of appellant and in addition thereto shall contain:
(1) A statement of the case and of the points involved, if the appellee disagrees with the statement of appellant.
(2) A statement of the facts which are necessary to correct or amplify the statement in appellant’s brief insofar as it is deemed erroneous or inadequate, with reference to pages of the record-on-appeal.”
For some time the Attorney General’s briefs filed in this court have included the statement complained of here and we have regarded that statement as surplusage. The rules promulgated by the Supreme Court require the state to show by reference to the record any dispute as to the facts as they are stated in the appellant’s brief. We would prefer that the rules be followed, but so long as they are not followed we assume that the court is under no obligation to perform the appellee’s duty. Accordingly, it is our opinion that if there is a factual dispute the appellee would specifically have said so.
Accordingly the motion is denied.
McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ., concur.