STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
DONALD ROY WELLS, 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 dismissed the State's petition for certiorari challenging a trial court's dismissal of criminal charges after the State refused to disclose a confidential informant. The dismissal was improper because the trial court's oral order was never reduced to writing and filed, making it unappealable.
The petition for certiorari is dismissed because no written order of dismissal was ever filed with the trial court clerk. An order or judgment of a trial court is not appealable until reduced to writing and filed with the clerk, and the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review an unwritten order.
[1] An order or judgment of a trial court is not appealable until it is reduced to writing and filed with the trial court clerk.
[2] A dismissal of charges based on the prosecution's refusal to disclose a confidential informant is not appealable absent a written order.
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“No order or judgment of a trial court is appealable until reduced to writing and filed with the trial court clerk.”
Establishes the jurisdictional requirement that orders must be in writing to be appealable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent Wells was arrested on May 15, 1973, in connection with alleged receipt and concealment of stolen property. The trial judge granted the defe…
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 Rendition Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
' HATCHETT, Justice.
Respondent Wells was arrested on May 15, 1973, during the execution of a search warrant issued earlier the same day, all in connection with the alleged receipt and concealment of certain stolen property. The trial judge granted defense motion to require disclosure of confidential informer by order entered October 15, 1973. At a hearing on November 2, 1973, this colloquy transpired:
THE COURT: ... Let me ask you, at this time do you intend to d[i]vulge the name of the confidential informant ? MR. EPSTEIN (the prosecutor):
No, Your Honor, it is the position of the state that we are not going to d[i]vulge it.
THE COURT: All right. Charges will be dismissed against Donald Roy Wells.
The prosecution filed notice of appeal on November 9, 1973, “to review the order of the Circuit Court . . . bearing date the 2nd day of November, 1973”, and directed the clerk to include in the record on appeal the “court’s order dismissing the information, dated November 2, 1973.” There is no such written order in the record, although the trial court clerk has certified that the record contains “all . papers ... as appears from the records and files of [his] office that have been directed to be included. . . . ” We are bound to conclude, therefore, that no written order of dismissal was entered.
The District Court of Appeal, First District, upheld the trial court’s dismissal in its decision reported at 308 So. 2d 163, and denied petition for rehearing. The attorney general’s office then filed here a petition for writ of certiorari which we granted without oral argument on June 25, 1975, Mr. Justice Overton dissenting. We now dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.
No order or judgment of a trial court is appealable until reduced to writing* and filed with the trial court clerk. State ex rel. Faircloth v. Cross, 238 So. 2d 81 (Fla.1970); Jenkins v. Lyles, 223 So. 2d 740 (Fla.1969); State v. Breeze, 300 So. 2d 729 (Fla.App., 2d Dist.1974); State v. Law, 297 So. 2d 347 (Fla.2d Dist.1974). Treating the papers on which the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, the District Court nonetheless lacked jurisdiction in “the absence of a written order”. State v. Simpson, 313 So. 2d 470 (Fla.App., 4th Dist.1975). Furthermore, any possibility of review is by now moot, inasmuch as more than two years have elapsed since the respondent was taken into custody and no application for an order extending time for trial was made, as required by Rule 3.-191(d) (2) (iv), RCrP. See Mullin v. State, Fla.App., 307 So. 2d 829 cert. denied sub nom. State v. Mullin, Fla., 317 So. 2d 761 (1975); State v. Wilson, 305 So. 2d 232 (Fla.App., 3d Dist.1974); State v. Williams, 287 So. 2d 415 (Fla.App., 2d Dist.1973); Esperti v. State, 276. So. 2d 58, 64 (Fla.App., 2d Dist.1973).
The petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed.
ROBERTS and BOYD, JJ., concur. ADKINS, C. J., and OVERTON and ENGLAND, JJ., concur in result only.
*
In Williams v. State, Fla., 324 So. 2d 74 (1976), we held that notice of appeal filed by a criminal defendant after judgment and sentence were reduced to writing, but before those documents were filed in the clerk’s office, “shall exist in a state of limbo until the judgment ... is rendered.” Upon rendition of judgment, the notice of appeal becomes efficacious to confer jurisdiction on the appellate court. The Williams holding was justified on the basis that “the petitioner was placed in an untenable position since the judgment conditioned the grant of supersedeas bond upon the filing of the notice of appeal.” Filing of notice of appeal is always a prerequisite for bail pending appeal when there is a criminal conviction, Rule 6.15(a), Florida Appellate Rules, 1962 Revision, and the result in the Williams case evinces an unwillingness to allow a man’s freedom to depend on the fortuity of. when papers happen to be filed in the clerk’s office. Although the decision in Williams v. State, supra, would have been fully supported on just such narrow grounds, expansive obiter dicta indicate that the doctrine there announced may well find broader application. However widely applied, though, the new rule does not reach the present case, because here the order sought to be reviewed has never been reduced to writing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
W. B. D., Inc. v. Howard Johnson Co., 382 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…ed. At the time of rendition, the notice of appeal shall mature and shall vest jurisdiction in the appellate court.” See also, Bank of Port St. Joe v. State, 362 So. 2d 96, 98 (Fla.App. 1st DCA 1978). Appellee urges that the case of State v. Wells, 326 So. 2d 175 (Fla.1976) is dispositive of the jurisdictional issue and is the latest pronouncement by the Supreme Court of Florida on this subject. With this position we do not agree. In State v. Wells, Justice Hatchett noted, at page 176, that no written order…
-
Tucker v. State, 357 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1978)…3.191(d)(2)(iv), as amended in The Florida Bar: Re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 343 So. 2d 1247, 1256 (Fla.1977); see also Fla.R.App.P. 9.310(a) and (b)(2) (1977); State v. Williams, 350 So. 2d 81, 82 n. 2 (Fla.1977). And see State v. Wells, 326 So. 2d 175, 176 (Fla.1976). . Unless otherwise specifically provided, our court rules are prospective only in effect. Poyntz v. Reynolds, 37 Fla. 533, 19 So. 649 (1896). ' ' . 287 So. 2d at 419 n. 3. . 294 So. 2d at 419. . 311 So. 2d at 129 (Grimes, J., co…
-
State v. Cannon, 332 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…judicial determination that the appeal was not frivolous or had not been taken simply for the purpose of securing such a delay. Accordingly, we affirm the trial judge’s order discharging the defendant under Rule 3.191(d)(1). See also State v. Wells, 326 So. 2d 175, at 176 (Fla.1976) (opinion of Hatchett, J.); State v. Wilson, 305 So. 2d 232 (Fla.App.3rd 1974); [*128] State v. Williams, 287 So. 2d 415 (Fla.App.2d 1973); Esperti v. State, 276 So. 2d 58 (Fla.App.2nd 1973); State v. Byrne, 331 So. 2d 394 (Fla.App…
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 (13 total)
- Williams v. State, 324 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1975)
- Mullin v. State, 307 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- State v. Williams, 287 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Earl Faircloth v. Hon. Spencer C. Cross, 238 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1970)
- Eli S. Jenkins v. Hon. Woody A. Lyles, 223 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1969)
- State v. Wilson, 305 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- ORR v. State, 317 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1975)
- Lehmann v. Claude Cloniger and his wife, 317 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1975)
- State v. Wells, 308 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Meaders Clifton DeLOACHE v. DeLOACHE, 297 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)