CopyCited 213 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1988 WL 4367
...1985), for a proposition which was not addressed in C.C. In C.C., the issue was whether the state had the right to appeal trial court orders in juvenile cases to the district courts of appeal under either article V, section 4(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution or sections
924.07 and
924.071, Florida Statutes (1981)....
...2d DCA 1969) (granting state certiorari review of nonappealable discovery order); State v. Williams,
227 So.2d 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969), cert. denied,
237 So.2d 180 (1970) (granting certiorari review of nonappealable discovery orders and citing Harris as authority for proposition that sections
924.07 and
924.071 do not limit state's right to seek certiorari review of interlocutory orders); State v....
...lusive, the appellate courts will be unnecessarily intruding, thereby delaying the trial process. Thus, short of omniscience, it is necessary to devise a solution which retains a degree of discretionary, i.e., certiorari, review. Sections
924.07 and
924.071, Florida Statutes (1985) and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.130 and 9.140, in pertinent part, identify the most common interlocutory orders for which appeal by right is always appropriate and for which appellate intrusion into the trial process is justified....
...The state cannot appeal an acquittal whereas a defendant may appeal a conviction. Consequently, without an ameliorating rule, the state has no remedy, adequate or otherwise, for the erroneous suppression of evidence when an acquittal occurs. Rule 9.140(c)(1)(B) and section 924.071(1) provide a remedy for the state even though a reciprocal interlocutory right of appeal is not provided to the defendant for an erroneous refusal to suppress evidence....
...Rogers & Baxter, Certiorari in Florida, 4 U.Fla.L.Rev. 477 (1951); Haddad, The Common Law Writ of Certiorari in Florida, 29 U.Fla.L.Rev. 207 (1977). [2] This does not mean that we and the legislature should not continue to review and amend sections
924.07 and
924.071 and rules 9.130 and 9.140 in order to identify additional rulings from which the right of appeal is appropriate....
CopyCited 143 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 269
...inevitable. See Judicial Coordinating Council, Court Reporting: A Report to the Supreme Court of Florida (1982). [2] If the state had wanted to contest the holding that appellant's confession was inadmissible, it could have taken a pretrial appeal. § 924.071(1), Fla....
CopyCited 56 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...Has the Supreme Court so provided? We conclude that it has not. "The sole provision promulgated by the Supreme Court for appellate review of pretrial orders in criminal cases is found in Rule 6.3 subd. b, 32 F.S.A.(1) "[1] Rule 6.3, subd. b, Florida Appellate Rules, reads: "`b. Appeals pursuant to Section 924.071, Florida Statutes 1967, shall be taken within the time prescribed in subsection a....
...Such appeals shall be given priority on the docket.' This Rule breathes life into alegislative Act(2) which purports to permit appellate review of a pretrial order which quashes a search warrant, suppresses evidence obtained by search and seizure, or suppresses a confession or admission made by a defendant. "[2] F.S. § 924.071, F.S.A....
...rovide for interlocutory review. Any statute purporting to grant interlocutory appeals is clearly a declaration of legislative policy and no more. Until and unless the Supreme Court of Florida adopts such statute as its own (as it did with regard to Section 924.071), the purported enactment is void." "[4] Levin and Amsterdam, Legislative Control Over Judicial Rule-Making: A Problem in Constitutional Revision, 107 U.Pa.L.Rev....
CopyCited 40 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...This is a criminal prosecution for unlawful possession of marijuana in which the trial court granted the defendant's motion to suppress the subject marijuana on unreasonable search and seizure grounds. The state takes an appeal therefrom, which appeal we have jurisdiction to entertain. § 924.071(1), Fla....
CopyCited 36 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 257
...ined judgment in their favor in prosecutions by indictment, whether by the judgment of the court or the verdict of a jury. State v. Burns,
18 Fla. 185, 187 (1891). In view of this virtual prohibition of the common law, we can see sections
924.07 and
924.071 as strictly limited and carefully crafted exceptions designed to provide appellate review to the state in criminal cases where such is needed as a matter of policy and where it does not offend against constitutional principles....
...(1983) (bond validations); § 382.45, Fla. Stat. (1983) (appeals of judicial action on petition for certification of birth facts). Having determined that the state's right of appeal is governed by statute, we now come to the remaining question of whether either section
924.07 or section
924.071 provides for an appeal by the state in the circumstances of this case....
...(2) and may appeal an order in arrest of judgment under section
924.07(3). But it is clear that the court's order was in response to respondent's motion for judgment of acquittal and was in fact a judgment of acquittal. Nowhere in sections
924.07 or
924.071 is provision made for appeal by the state from an order granting a judgment of acquittal....
...(c) If the jury returns a verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict, the defendant's motion may be made or renewed within ten days after the reception of a verdict, and the jury is discharged or such further time as the court may allow. [4] Section 924.071, Florida Statutes (1981), provides additional grounds for appeal by the state in criminal cases, none of which is applicable here: (1) The state may appeal from a pretrial order dismissing a search warrant, suppressing evidence obtain...
CopyCited 31 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 619890
...The appellate rules authorize the State to appeal orders "suppressing before trial ... evidence obtained by search and seizure." Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(c)(1)(B). Whatever its efficacy, a statute also recites that the "state may appeal from a pretrial order ... suppressing evidence." § 924.071(1), Fla....
CopyCited 28 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 435
...se of State v. Creighton,
469 So.2d 735 (Fla. 1985), have found it lacking in legal merit. The state also argues that it may appeal the orders in question pursuant to the statutes providing for appellate review in criminal cases. Sections
924.07 and
924.071, Florida Statutes (1981), provide as follows:
924.07 Appeal by state The state may appeal from: (1) An order dismissing an indictment or information or any count thereof; (2) An order granting a new trial; (3) An order arresting judgment;...
...han one appeal under this subsection in any case. Such appeal shall embody all assignments of error in each pretrial order that the state seeks to have reviewed. The state shall pay all costs of such appeal except for the defendant's attorney's fee. 924.071 Additional grounds for appeal by the state; time for taking; stay of cause....
...I concur with that portion of the majority opinion that holds that the state does not have a constitutional right of appeal. State v. Creighton,
469 So.2d 735 (Fla. 1985). I dissent to the remainder of the opinion and would hold that the state's right of appeal in criminal cases, provided by sections
924.07 and
924.071, Florida Statutes (1981), [1] applies to parallel situations arising *147 in juvenile delinquency cases. Juvenile delinquency cases are analogous to criminal cases and I find that the legislature intended for sections
924.07 and
924.071 to apply when the state seeks to appeal a trial court ruling in a juvenile delinquency case. In the case of respondent C.C., the order the state sought to appeal was an order excluding from evidence the confession or incriminating statements of the accused. In criminal cases, the state is given the right to appeal such an order by section
924.071(1)....
...[3] such authority is provided by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(1)(B). Where an order in a juvenile delinquency proceeding is directly analogous and comparable to an order of which appellate review is authorized by sections
924.07 or
924.071 in criminal cases, I believe the legislative intent is to authorize appellate review of the order....
...I would therefore hold that the state is entitled to appeal the order. In the case of respondent C.A.Q., the order in question was a suppression of physical evidence on grounds of illegal search and seizure. In criminal cases, the state may appeal such a suppression order before proceeding to trial. § 924.071(1); Fla.R.App.P....
...ight of appeal applicable to these cases. I would answer the certified question by stating that the state is entitled to appellate review of adverse final judgments and orders in juvenile delinquency cases to the same extent that sections
924.07 and
924.071 provide a right to such review of parallel orders and judgments in criminal cases....
...fore final judgment must be resolved by determining whether such interlocutory appeal is authorized by rule of this Court. *148 Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.; R.J.B. v. State,
408 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 1982). ALDERMAN, J., concurs. NOTES [1]
924.07 and
924.071, Florida Statutes (1981), provide as follows:
924.07 Appeal by state The state may appeal from: (1) An order dismissing an indictment or information or any count thereof; (2) An order granting a new trial; (3) An order arresting judgment;...
...han one appeal under this subsection in any case. Such appeal shall embody all assignments of error in each pretrial order that the state seeks to have reviewed. The state shall pay all costs of such appeal except for the defendant's attorney's fee. 924.071 Additional grounds for appeal by the state; time for taking; stay of cause....
CopyCited 26 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1997 WL 228417
...Gould is inapposite to the juvenile arena. While the Court stated in C.C. that there was no legislative intent to have chapter 924 apply to juveniles, we were concerned in that case with only two specific sections of chapter 924: section
924.07 and section
924.071....
...and ANSTEAD, J., concur. NOTES [1] Section
924.34, Florida Statutes (1995), is identical to section
924.34, Florida Statutes (1989). [2] These two sections set out the general instances in which the state has a right to appeal. [3] Sections
924.07 and
924.071 are substantially the same in the current statutes....
CopyCited 16 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...Accordingly, the order suppressing evidence seized at the time of appellee's arrest is reversed, and this cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the views herein expressed. Reversed and remanded. NOTES [1] An appeal by the State from such a ruling is permitted by F.S. § 924.071(1), F.S.A.; see Rule 6.3, F.A.R., 32 F.S.A.
CopyCited 14 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...In the instant case, prior to the first demand for speedy trial, the State had appealed the granting of a motion to suppress by the appellant. The appeal was taken in January of 1969 and disposed of in March of 1969, three days after the beginning of the spring term of court. Florida Statute § 924.071, F.S.A., authorizes the State to appeal motions to suppress which are granted to defendants....
...As set out before, conduct by parties in a criminal case which results in superseding or staying trial court proceedings has been held to toll the running of speedy trial rights. See, Carroll, Meeks and Bryant, supra . Examples are: (1) Appeals by the State under F.S. § 924.071, F.S.A....
...1972), a case decided under the speedy trial statute and partially under the rule, the First District Court of Appeal distinguished between interlocutory appeals by the State which actually stay trial court proceedings and those which do not. Florida Statute § 924.071, F.S.A., provides for an automatic stay of proceedings when the State appeals adverse orders on motions to suppress evidence and confessions, and evidence illegally seized....
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...October 9, 1970. Daniel T.K. Hurley, Asst. County Solicitor, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Robert P. Foley and J. Brian Brennan, of Foley & Brennan, West Palm Beach, for appellees. WALDEN, Judge. The State brings this interlocutory appeal under F.S. 1967, section 924.071, F.S.A., for the purpose of reviewing an order of the trial court which granted the defendant's motion to suppress certain physical evidence taken from the defendant's person....
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard C. Booth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant. Judge C. Luckey, Public Defender, and Perry A. Little, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellee. LILES, Acting Chief Judge. The state interlocutorily appeals, pursuant to F.S. § 924.071, the granting of a motion to suppress....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...*103 Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Frank Schaub, State Atty., and Richard W. Seymour, Asst. State Atty., Bradenton, for appellant. James M. McEwen, Tampa, and Robert P. Rosin, Sarasota, for appellee. McNULTY, Judge. The state appeals, pursuant to § 924.071, F.S....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1994 WL 192202
...court's conclusion that the State could appeal the trial court's suppression order. However, we also find that the State's authority to appeal the county court suppression order is governed not by rule 9.140, as stated by the district court, but by section 924.071(1), Florida Statutes (1991)....
...ions predated Skinner and that the other decision was released just shortly thereafter. In accordance with Skinner, we find that a breathalyzer test is a search. Although the district court upheld the State's appeal based on rule 9.140, we find that section 924.071(1), Florida Statutes (1991), rather than Rule 9.140, Rules of Appellate Procedure, provides the authority for the State's interlocutory appeal in this instance....
...on does not provide this Court with such authority for appeals from the county court to the circuit court. The authority for appeals to the circuit court is established solely by general law as enacted by the legislature. The legislature has enacted section 924.071, which provides: "The state may appeal from a pretrial order dismissing a search warrant or suppressing *1332 evidence, however obtained......
...The appeal must be taken before the trial." Clearly, this statute permits the State to appeal a county court order that suppresses the results of a breathalyzer test to the circuit court. In so holding, we acknowledge that we have previously held that sections
924.07 and
924.071, Florida Statutes, are invalid as applied to interlocutory appeals from the circuit court to the district court of appeal....
...trols the appeal in this case. In this instance, article V, section 5, of the Florida Constitution gives the legislature the exclusive authority to provide for the manner of appeals from the county court to the circuit court, and sections
924.07 and
924.071 are valid as far as these sections pertain to appeals to the circuit court....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...eal in Mullin held that the existing Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(d)(2) requires a trial court to extend or toll the speedy trial period under those circumstances enumerated in the rule. [3] Further, the Cannon court rejected the contention that section 924.071(2), Florida Statutes, grants the state an automatic stay, reasoning: [I]t is obvious that the portion of Fla. Stat. § 924.071(2), which provides for an automatic stay during the pendency of such an appeal has been superseded by the provisions of the rule... . A contrary ruling would mean that the state could automatically deprive a defendant of the benefits of the Speedy Trial Rule, which did not exist when Fla. Stat. § 924.071(2) was adopted, merely by filing an appeal from an order of suppression and without any judicial determination that the appeal was not frivolous or had not been taken simply for the purpose of securing such a delay....
...the circumstances, tolls the speedy trial rule. On the other hand, both the Second District Court of Appeal in State v. Smail and the First District Court of Appeal in State v. Pearce held that an interlocutory appeal filed by the state pursuant to section 924.071 automatically tolls the speedy trial time, and consequently no trial court order is necessary. The Pearce court rejected the argument that rule 3.191(d)(2) superseded the automatic stay provisions of section 924.071, as adopted by Florida Appellate Rule 6.3.b., and stated: [T]he speedy trial rule's provisions ....
.... may be seen as having a purpose . . *974 to permit the trial court to grant or deny an extension of the speedy trial period and a stay of the trial when the State proposed an interlocutory appeal in circumstances justified by §
924.07 but not by §
924.071(1). [Footnote omitted.]
336 So.2d at 1277. We disagree with the interpretation stated in Smail and Pearce that section
924.071(2) automatically stays the right to a speedy trial. Neither a rule of this Court nor an act of the legislature can change the constitutional right to a speedy trial. It is our view that existing rule 3.191(d)(2) and section
924.071(2) do not contradict each other. They each concern different matters. Section
924.071(2) is confined to the automatic staying of trial court proceedings when the state appeals certain pretrial orders....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
... An appeal may be taken by the state from: "(1) An order quashing an indictment or information or any count thereof; * * *" Interestingly, no stay of proceedings is automatically invoked by statute or rule when such an appeal is taken. Instead, the automatic stay proceeding afforded the state is contained in Fla. Stat. § 924.071, F.S.A., providing in pertinent part: "(1) The state may appeal from a pretrial order quashing a search warrant or suppressing evidence * * * or suppressing a confession or admission made by a defendant....
...ial *871 under Fla. Stat. § 915.01(2), F.S.A. If the accused has not invoked the statute then no rights accrue thereunder and his trial status remains in limbo. The state, obviously, is on notice of either occurrence. However, turning to Fla. Stat. § 924.071, F.S.A., if evidence is suppressed or a search warrant quashed, the information or indictment naturally remains as the official accusation against the accused, but if the state appeals the proceedings are automatically stayed until this issue is disposed of on appeal....
...Naturally, a party who affirmatively seeks a stay, and receives it, should be chargeable with its consequence, the same as with a continuance, when considering the applicability of the speedy trial statute. The state's appeal, however, was not taken under the purview of Fla. Stat. § 924.071, F.S.A., and the time for speedy trial having been invoked by petitioner continued to run....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...t be computed to determine the three successive terms in the speedy trial statute because said appeal resulted *849 in an automatic stay of the case pending its disposition by operation of Chapter 70-339, Section 149, Laws of Florida, now carried as Section 924.071, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....
...stay of the case was limited to those enumerated above but that the effect of Section 149 of Chapter 70-339 was to expand the class having such effect to any order appealed by the State. Reading subsection (2) in pari marteria with subsection (1) of Section 924.071, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., makes it clear that the purpose for providing a stay of the case in the event of an appeal is to prevent the State from having to go to trial without the benefit of materially helpful evidence because of an erroneous dismissal or suppression order entered by the trial court. Since we now hold that the State's appeal of December 8, 1970, is not within the purview of Section 924.071, we must perforce hold that the September 1970, November 1970, and January 1971 terms expired successively without relator being afforded the speedy trial to which he was entitled by virtue of his three successive demands therefor, beginning with the November 1970 term....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...The petitioner filed a motion to suppress his confession and the evidence. After hearing, the trial court granted petitioner's motion to suppress. The State thereafter filed a timely notice of interlocutory appeal. Petitioner then made application for release on his own recognizance pursuant to Florida Statute 924.071(2)....
...arges of Assault with intent to commit robbery and possession of heroin. *272 However, as to the robbery charge the court set bond in the amount of $20,000. Petitioner files this petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that under Florida Statute 924.071(2): "An appeal by the state from a pretrial order shall stay the case against each defendant upon whose application the order was made until the appeal is determined....
...gnizance pending the interlocutory appeal filed by the state. The trial court, having set a $20,000 bond on the charge of robbery, has determined that robbery in this instance is a bailable offense. Therefore, petitioner falls within Florida Statute 924.071(2)....
...It is essential that to safeguard this system the preservation of the inherent powers of the three branches must be free from encroachment or infringement by one upon the other. We hold that the word "shall" as set forth by the legislature in Florida Statute 924.071(2) must be interpreted as merely directory and not mandatory....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 259, 2012 WL 1123738, 2012 Fla. LEXIS 641
...ANALYSIS “The State’s right to appeal in a criminal case must be ‘expressly conferred by statute.’” Exposito v. State,
891 So.2d 525, 527 (Fla.2004) (quoting Ramos v. State,
505 So.2d 418, 421 (Fla.1987)). The State’s authority to appeal a criminal case is set forth in sections
924.07 and
924.071, Florida Statutes (2009)....
...Ass'n, Inc. v. Devon Neighborhood Ass'n, Inc.,
67 So.3d 187 , 189 n. 1 (Fla.2011) (citing Wallace v. Dean,
3 So.3d 1035, 1040 (Fla.2009); Rosen v. Fla. *472 Ins. Guar. Ass'n,
802 So.2d 291, 292 (Fla.2001)). . The grounds for appeal by the State set forth in section
924.071, Florida Statutes (2009), are not applicable in this case. Section
924.071 provides for state appeals from certain pretrial orders and delineates when a stay is applicable during such appeal....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...Because of the material differences, however, that decision has no direct bearing on the present controversy. [6] Here, as in the district court, the state argues that it is entitled to an automatic stay during the pendency of its appeal by virtue of Section 924.071(2), Florida Statutes (1973)....
...4th DCA 1976), and Mullin v. State,
307 So.2d 829 (Fla.3d DCA 1974), cert. denied,
317 So.2d 761 (Fla. 1975), the court below correctly determined that the automatic statutory stay would not be applicable to appeals of pre-trial orders other than those specified in Section
924.071(1)....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...Richard E. Gerstein, State Atty., and Milton Robbins, Asst. State Atty., for appellant. Thomas B. Duff, Miami, for appellee. Before PEARSON, C.J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ. PEARSON, Chief Judge. This appeal by the State of Florida is taken pursuant to § 924.071(1) Fla....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...*288 Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Frank Schaub, State's Atty., and Richard W. Seymour, Asst. State's Atty., Bradenton, for appellant. Charles McQuillan and Jerome Pratt, Palmetto, for appellee. McNULTY, Judge. The state appeals pursuant to F.S. § 924.071, 1969, F.S.A., from an interlocutory order suppressing certain evidence obtained as a result of a search and seizure....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...When an appeal is taken by the state by filing a notice of appeal, a filing fee of $25.00 shall be transmitted to the clerk of the appellate court by the Board of County Commissioners of the county in which the trial court is located. "b. Appeals pursuant to Section 924.071, Florida Statutes 1967, shall be taken within the time prescribed in subsection a above, or prior to the commencement of the trial whichever is sooner....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...1975), that an order under Rule 3.191(d)(2)(iv), F.R. Cr.P. is required to extend the speedy trial time during the pendency of an interlocutory appeal by the state from an order suppressing evidence. Despite the state's argument here, it is obvious that the portion of Fla. Stat. § 924.071(2), which provides for an automatic stay during the pendency of such an appeal has been superseded by the provisions of the rule in question which specifically require an order of extension, "... for a period of reasonable and necessary delay... for interlocutory appeals... ." A contrary ruling would mean that the state could automatically deprive a defendant of the benefits of the Speedy Trial Rule, which did not exist when Fla. Stat. § 924.071(2) was adopted, merely by filing an appeal from an order of suppression and without any judicial determination that the appeal was not frivolous or had not been taken simply for the purpose of securing such a delay....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...Those depositions revealed the existence of the above-stated facts. After reviewing these depositions and hearing argument of counsel, the trial court entered an order suppressing the evidence. The state appeals that order, which appeal we have jurisdiction to entertain. § 924.071, Fla....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...[5] The Constitution does not authorize the legislature to provide for interlocutory review. Any statute purporting to grant interlocutory appeals is clearly a declaration of legislative policy and no more. Until and unless the Supreme Court of Florida adopts such statute as its own (as it did with regard to Section 924.071), the purported enactment is void....
...NOTES [1] Witnesses that may be used by the State for identification of the persons involved in the perpetration of the crime alleged to have been committed by defendants. [2] Rule 6.3, subd. b, Florida Appellate Rules reads: "b. Appeals pursuant to Section 924.071, Florida Statutes 1967, shall be taken within the time prescribed in subsetion a. above, or prior to the commencement of the trial whichever is sooner. The procedure for such appeals shall be as provided in Rule 4.2. Such appeals shall be given priority on the docket." [3] F.S. § 924.071, F.S.A....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...Johnson, Public Defender, and Michael E. Raiden, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellee. SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge. The state challenges the trial court's order granting the defendant's pretrial motion to suppress her confession. We have jurisdiction. § 924.071(1), Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...rady rule. Respondents offer one additional argument for dismissing the State's petition. It is urged that the State's attempted use of common law certiorari to appeal an interlocutory criminal order violates the legislative intent behind Fla. Stat. §
924.071, 1967, in that its enumeration of the instances the State may appeal from adverse decisions prior to trial was meant to be exclusive; and further that this interlocutory procedure effectuates a denial of respondents' right to a speedy trial. Our Supreme Court has interpreted Fla. Stat. 1967, §
924.07, F.S.A., to which §
924.071 is clearly supplementary, to deal only with direct appeals and has no effect on common law or constitutional certiorari....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...There is no evidentiary basis for the trial judge's finding that the search was unlawful, and we must conclude that he applied an erroneous rule of law. Therefore, the order granting defendant's motion to quash the fruits of the search must be reversed. Reversed and remanded. NOTES [1] The appeal is authorized by Section 924.071(1), Florida Statutes (1979), and Fla.R....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...70-902. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. July 9, 1971. *345 Richard W. Seymour, Asst. State's Atty., Bradenton, for appellant. Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellee. McNULTY, Judge. The state appeals pursuant to § 924.071, F.S....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and Raymond O. Gross, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellee. LILES, Acting Chief Judge. Appellant, State of Florida, appeals the granting of a motion to suppress, pursuant to the authority granted in F.S. § 924.071, F.S.A....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...The trial judge, after proper hearing, at which extensive testimony was adduced, determined probable cause did not exist and suppressed the evidence and confession. Appellant, State of Florida, timely appeals the granting of the motion to suppress pursuant to authority granted in Florida Statutes, Section 924.071, F.S.A....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...The State appeals from an order dismissing the information against appellees Pearce and Kinner on the ground they were not given a speedy trial as required by Rule 3.191, R.Cr.P. The 180-day period prescribed by the Rule expired during the State's interlocutory appeal, pursuant to § 924.071, F.S., from an earlier order granting appellees' motion to suppress certain evidence....
...e matter, that its stay order was a nullity and that, 180 days having long since passed, Pearce and Kinner were entitled to discharge. Upon our initial consideration of this case, we were of the view that the State's interlocutory appeal pursuant to § 924.071, [1] F.S., and Rule 6.3 b, F.A.R., perfected an automatic stay of the case in the trial court and that application to the trial court for extension of the speedy trial period, Rule 3.191(d)(2)(iv), R.Cr.P., was unnecessary. We reasoned that the Supreme Court adopted § 924.071 when it promulgated Appellate Rule 6.3 b [2] and thus made effective the statute's provision for an automatic stay....
...Noting that the speedy trial rule adopted in February 1971 [3] permits the trial court to order an extension of the speedy trial period for "a period of reasonable and necessary delay ... for interlocutory appeals," Rule 3.191(d)(2)(iv) R.Cr.P., the Cannon court held that the rule superseded the automatic stay provisions of § 924.071, F.S....
...judicial determination that the appeal was not frivolous or had not been taken simply for the purpose of securing such a delay." 322 So.2d at 127. We remain of the view that Rule 6.3 b, F.A.R., preserves the automatic stay provisions *1277 of former § 924.071(2), F.S., notwithstanding that the speedy trial rule otherwise countenances extensions only on order of the trial court....
...The contrary interpretation proceeds from the impression that the 1971 speedy trial rule could have had no purpose, in providing for orders to extend the trial time during interlocutory appeals, except to nullify by that inconsistent measure the automatic stay previously afforded the State by former § 924.071(2)....
...We do not conceive that the speedy trial rule must necessarily be given that effect, nor that it should be if another course is possible. When the Supreme Court adopted the speedy trial rule in 1971, there were as now two statutes on the books authorizing appeals by the State in criminal cases: §
924.07 and §
924.071. The context and language of §
924.071(2) indicate a legislative purpose to stay the case automatically only if the State's interlocutory appeal is one authorized by §
924.071(1), i.e., taken from an order "dismissing a search warrant, suppressing evidence obtained by search and seizure, or suppressing a confession or admission made by a defendant." [6] The legislature did not provide an automatic stay during an...
...er pretrial orders." Sec.
924.07(1), (2), (8), F.S. In this light, the speedy trial rule's provision for court-ordered extensions during interlocutory appeals may be seen as having a purpose other than to repeal the automatic stay afforded by former §
924.071(2). That purpose was to permit the trial court to grant or deny an extension of the speedy trial period and a stay of the trial when the State proposed an interlocutory appeal in circumstances justified by §
924.07 but not by §
924.071(1). [7] We therefore need not presume that criminal Rule 3.191(d)(2)(iv) was intended to excise from §
924.071, made effective by appellate Rule 6.3 b, the automatic stay which theretofore was integral. There are practical reasons so to reconcile the provisions of §
924.071(2), F.S., and Rule 3.191(d)(2)(iv), R.Cr.P., rather than to find intractable conflict there. First, we must recognize that ordinarily there will be no appealable order under §
924.071 until a substantial portion of the speedy trial period has run....
...It will therefore frequently be difficult if not impossible to render an appellate decision within the unextended period for speedy trial. See State v. Wilson,
305 So.2d 232 (Fla.App. 3d, 1974), cert. den.
314 So.2d 781 (Fla. 1975). Therefore, given the State's right to appeal the interlocutory orders described in §
924.071(1), an automatic stay of the trial and a corresponding extension of the speedy trial period is essential to the effectiveness of the appeal....
...Our opinion filed June 29, 1976, is withdrawn and this opinion substituted in its place. The prayer of appellees' petition for rehearing is DENIED. The order dismissing this prosecution is REVERSED. BOYER, C.J., and MILLS, J., concur. NOTES [1] Sec. 924.071(2): "An appeal by the state from a pretrial order shall stay the case against each defendant upon whose application the order was made until the appeal is determined." [2] Rule 6.3 b: "Appeals pursuant to Section 924.071, Florida Statutes 1967, shall be taken within [30 days] ......
...1972), the Supreme Court adopted this court's opinion that: "`This Rule [6.3 b, F.A.R.] breathes life into a legislative Act which purports to permit appellate review of a pretrial order which ... suppresses evidence obtained by search and seizure [§ 924.071, F.S.]......
...[4] In re Florida Appellate Rules,
211 So.2d 198, 300 (Fla. 1968). [5] E.g., "[T]he last expression of the Legislature will prevail in cases of conflicting statutes... ." Albury v. City of Jacksonville Beach,
295 So.2d 297, 300 (Fla. 1974). [6] The title of the bill enacted as §
924.071 likewise indicates that the automatic stay is limited to "such appeals" as are authorized by the Act, Ch....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...le for trial and therefore was not entitled to the benefits of the speedy trial rule. The applicable law specifically provides that an appeal by the State shall not stay the operation of an order in favor of the defendant except as provided in F.S., Section 924.071(2), F.S.A., or when the appeal is from an order granting a new trial....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...is hereby certified to the Supreme Court for determination of the questions presented herein with respect to Rule 3.191. BOARDMAN, C.J., and McNULTY, J., concur. NOTES [1] State v. Tucker,
301 So.2d 501 (Fla.2d DCA 1974). [2] The state asserts that §
924.071(2), Fla....
...essing evidence, and suppressing a confession or admission, nowhere in the statute is an appeal from an order dismissing an indictment specifically mentioned nor has the state cited authority for automatic extensions in such situations. We hold that § 924.071(2), allows automatic extensions during the pendency of appeals from the specific pretrial orders enumerated in the statute and noted above....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1175
...COBB, C.J., and COWART, J., concur. NOTES [1] Defendants assert that there is no authority for an appeal by the State on this issue. We disagree. The order is appealable as an adjunct to the order granting the motion to suppress, which latter order is clearly appealable under section
924.071(1), Florida Statutes (1985), or alternatively, is appealable as a pre-trial order under section
924.07(8)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...Thus, the issue framed by the briefs on this appeal is whether the speedy trial time was automatically stayed pending the state's interlocutory appeal from the order of suppression in the absence of an order to this effect. The interlocutory appeal was taken pursuant to Section 924.071, Florida Statutes (1975), which reads as follows: "924.071 Additional grounds for appeal by the state; time for taking; stay of cause....
...ates that an appeal under that section brings about a stay of the case. Faced with conflicting decisions, we are persuaded by the rationale of State v. Pearce, supra , that the speedy trial time is tolled. In Mullin v. State, supra , the language in Section 924.071 relating to the stay of the case was apparently not called to the court's attention. The court in State v. Cannon, supra , did consider the effect of the statute but concluded that the pertinent language had been superseded by the speedy trial rule. This overlooks the fact that Section 924.071, as a whole, only became effective upon being incorporated into Fla.App....
...Our conclusion is consistent with Carroll v. State,
251 So.2d 866 (Fla. *644 1971), in which the supreme court reasoned that the speedy trial time mandated by statute prior to the enactment of the speedy trial rule is tolled pending an appeal under Section
924.071....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...ools. The tangible evidence against the defendant had been found in luggage seized and opened at the Orlando Airport terminal building. The defendant's motion to suppress this tangible evidence was granted and the State has appealed pursuant to F.S. Section 924.071(1), F.S.A....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1994 WL 585658
...d amount to $7,500. Fontana filed a habeas corpus petition with the Second District Court of Appeal requesting to be released on recognizance pending the State's appeal. The district court found the habeas petition to be grounded at least in part on section 924.071(2), Florida Statutes (1991)....
...Fontana,
630 So.2d at 1142. The district court denied the habeas petition, declining to release Fontana on his own recognizance. The district court cited State ex rel. Harrington v. Genung,
300 So.2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), concluding that even if section
924.071, Florida Statutes, was applicable, the courts are authorized to consider bail in this situation. The district court reasoned that Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(e)(2) [2] was the applicable procedural rule and held, pursuant to the rule, that Fontana could be continued on bond for good cause. We hold that section
924.071(2) does not apply to this appeal. Section
924.071(2) applies only to appeals by the State from pretrial orders dismissing a search warrant or suppressing evidence. The pretrial order which was the subject of the appeal was not a pretrial order dismissing a search warrant or suppressing evidence. Therefore, the petition's reliance on section
924.071(2) was erroneous....
...Therefore, the decision of the district court is quashed and the case is remanded with instructions for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. It is so ordered. GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 924.071(2) states: An appeal by the state from a pretrial order shall stay the case against each defendant upon whose application the order was made until the appeal is determined....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...the motion prior to trial. The reason for this rule is that only by a decision on such motions prior to trial can the State be given a right to appeal. The right of the State to appeal appears in the Florida Statutes and the Florida Appellate Rules. Section 924.071(1), Florida Statutes (1975); and Fla.App....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 420601
...Because the Florida Constitution does not afford the state a right to appeal, the state can appeal a final order in a criminal case or a juvenile delinquency proceeding only if there is a statute authorizing the appeal. The state contends that the appeal is authorized by section 924.071(1)(k), but this statute applies exclusively to appeals in adult criminal cases....
...The supreme court applied the rule in Creighton and other cases holding that the state's right to appeal is purely statutory, and ultimately concluded that the state's appeal was correctly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Following the decision McLeod, the Legislature enacted section 924.071(1)(k), Florida Statutes, which authorizes the state to appeal an order denying restitution....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16328
specially: This court has previously held that Section
924.071(2), Florida Statutes (1975), does not automatically
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5090
...egal only as provided in this chapter. — It-is unlawful for any person to manufacture, possess, have under his *332 control, sell, prescribe, administer, dispense, or compound any narcotic drug, except as authorized in this chapter.” . F.S.1967, Section 924.071, F.S.A....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2053, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3829, 1988 WL 89729
DAUKSCH, Judge. This is an appeal from an order suppressing evidence in a narcotics case. We have jurisdiction under section 924.071(1), Florida Statutes (1985)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6214
McNULTY, Judge. The state appeals pursuant to § 924.071, F.S.1969, F.S.A., from an interlocutory order suppressing certain evidence....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9827, 1994 WL 558860
...Section
924.07(l)(j), Florida Statutes (1991), provides that the state may appeal from a ruling granting a motion for judgment of acquittal after a jury verdict. Here, however, because the jury deadlocked, there was no verdict. Thus, no appeal is authorized by section
924.071....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8259
PER CURIAM. By this interlocutory appeal, pursuant to § 924.071(1), Fla.Stat., we are called upon to review the propriety of a trial *75 court’s order suppressing certain evidence obtained following what the trial court found to be an illegal arrest....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 244, 1997 Fla. LEXIS 604
...Gould is inapposite to the juvenile arena. While the Court stated in G.C. that there was no legislative intent to have chapter 924 apply to juveniles, we were concerned in that case with only two specific sections of chapter 924: section
924.07 and section
924.071....
...HARDING, J., concurs in result only with an opinion, in which KOGAN, C.J. and ANSTEAD, J., concur. . Section
924.34, Florida Statutes (1995), is identical to section
924.34, Florida Statutes (1989). . These two sections set out the general instances in which the state has a right to appeal. . Sections
924.07 and
924.071 are substantially the same in the current statutes....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15886
...This court will not reverse a finding of fact of the trial judge when there is competent, substantial evidence to support that finding. Carroll v. State,
186 So.2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966). We, therefore, conclude that the order under review must be affirmed. Affirmed. . See §
924.071, Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6195
PER CURIAM. The defendants-appellees have moved to dismiss an appeal taken by the State of Florida pursuant to § 924.071 Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18983
...After the venue was lodged in Polk County, the case progressed smoothly through pretrial and hearings until the state judge granted petitioner’s motion to suppress on December 3, 1968. On December 28, 1968 the respondent appealed the suppression order to the Second District Court of Appeal pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 924.071....
...The Florida Statute pursuant to which the respondent appealed the motion to suppress provided for an automatic stay in the trial court. Between December 28, 1968, and March 14,1969, the state court was without jurisdiction to try the case. In light of the mandatory stay provisions in Fla.Stat. § 924.071, the state judge on January 19, 1969 continued the trial from February 24, 1969, until such a time “the appeal and the cross-appeal are finally decided.” See Record at 552....
...The case progressed smoothly until the court in December 1968, granted in part the petitioner’s motion to suppress. The respondent then filed an appeal with the Second District Court of Appeal seeking the reversal of the trial court’s order of suppression. Florida Statute § 924.071, pursuant to which the respondent filed the appeal, granted an automatic stay of the trial of the case until the appellate decision was rendered....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
McNULTY, Judge. The state appeals pursuant to § 924.071, F.S....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5252
interlocutory order in a criminal matter pursuant to § 924.-071(1), Fla.Stat., 1967, F.S.A.1 The order in question
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6242
order in granting the motion to suppress. F.S. §
924.071, F.S.A. provides that “the state may appeal from
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 1968 Fla. LEXIS 2179
...endant with unlawful possession of narcotics, tn-wit, cocaine and marijuana may he 'cross appeal and assign as error the failure of the court to suppress all the evidence, allegedly seized illegally, when the state has appealed pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 924.071 [F.S.A.] from an order which suppressed the ‘cocaine’ but denied the motion as to all other evidence.” The lower court was persuaded to allow the cross assignment of error upon authority of State v....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 15416
to rely on the automatic stay provisions of Section
924.071(2), Florida Statutes (1977). *257We have previously
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7493
favor of the defendant except as provided in § 924.-071(2), or when the appeal is from an order granting
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...seek appellate review in criminal cases.
The State’s right to appeal adverse judgments or orders in a criminal case must
be “expressly conferred by statute.” Exposito v. State,
891 So. 2d 525, 527 (Fla.
2004) (citations omitted); see also §
924.07, Fla. Stat; §
924.071, Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
PER CURIAM. Appellant seeks review by interlocutory appeal, pursuant to the provisions of F.S. section 924.071(1), F.S.A., of a pretrial order suppressing evidence procured without a search warrant....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6012
brings this interlocutory appeal, pursuant to §
924.071(1), F.S.A., to review an order of the trial court
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 435, 1985 Fla. LEXIS 3672
...ase of State v. Creighton,
469 So.2d 735 (Fla.1985), have found it lacking in legal merit. The state also argues that it may appeal the orders in question pursuant to the statutes providing for appellate review in criminal eases! Sections
924.07 and
924.071, Florida Statutes (1981), provide as follows:
924.07 Appeal by state — The state may appeal from: (1) An order dismissing an indictment or information or any count thereof; (2) An order granting a new trial; (3) An order arresting judgment;...
...one appeal under this subsection in any case. Such appeal shall embody all assignments of error in each pretrial order that the state seeks to have reviewed. The state shall pay all costs of such appeal except for the defendant’s attorney’s fee. 924.071 Additional grounds for appeal by the state; time for taking; stay of cause.— -, (1) The state may appeal from a pretrial order dismissing a search warrant, suppressing evidence obtained by search and seizure, or suppressing a confession *146 or admission made by a defendant....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6660
...The case has been orally argued before this court and the record on appeal has been read and given full consideration. The State of Florida, by statute and rule, is authorized to appeal from the pretrial order entered herein by the trial judge suppressing the evidence obtained by the search and seizure. Florida Statutes, Section 924.071, F.S.A., provides that: “The state may appeal from a pretrial order . . . suppressing evidence obtained by search and seizure, ...” F.A.R., Rule 6.3, sub. b, 32 F.S.A., provides that: “Appeals pursuant to Section 924.071, Florida Statutes 19$7, shall be taken within the time prescribed in subsection a above, or prior to the commencement of the trial whichever is sooner....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...The State of Florida appeals the trial court’s order granting
Appellee Thomas Pastor, Jr.’s motion to suppress his statements
because the statements were made after he invoked his right to
counsel. We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.; §
924.071, Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19197
...ion of speedy trial time whenever the state appeals in a criminal case pursuant to that rule. We reverse. Rule 9.140(c)(2) provides that an appeal by the state shall stay further proceedings in the lower tribunal only by order of the lower tribunal. Section 924.071(2), Florida Statutes (1979), provides for an automatic stay during the pendency of a state appeal from a suppression order (among others)....
...But neither the statutory automatic stay nor the request for stay required in rule 9.140(c)(2) has anything to do with the extension of speedy trial time. State v. Jenkins,
389 So.2d 971 (Fla.1980). In the Jenkins case, our supreme court held that regardless of the automatic stay provided in section
924.071(2), the state must request an extension of speedy trial time in accordance with rule 3.191(d)(2) when the state files an interlocutory appeal or an appeal from a dismissal of an indictment or information....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5771
PER CURIAM. This is an appeal by the State of Florida, authorized by § 924.071 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., from an order of the criminal court of record of Dade County granting a motion to suppress certain evidence....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6561
PEARSON, Chief Judge. This is an appeal brought by the state under authority of Rule 6.3, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A., and § 924.071, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 5560
...Because the Florida Constitution does not afford the state a right to appeal, the state can appeal a final order in a criminal case or a juvenile delinquency proceeding only if there is a statute authorizing the appeal. The state contends that the appeal is authorized by section 924.071(1)(k), but this statute applies exclusively to appeals in adult criminal cases....
...The supreme court applied the rule in Creighton and other cases holding that the state’s right to appeal is purely statutory, and ultimately concluded that the state’s appeal was correctly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Following the decision McLeod, the Legislature enacted section 924.071(1)(k), Florida Statutes, which authorizes the state to appeal an order denying restitution....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14061
BOYER, Chief Judge. The State of Florida, by this interlocutory appeal pursuant to F.S. 924.071, seeks our review of an order of the trial judge suppressing evidence resulting from a search of the person of appellee following his arrest for a misdemeanor (assault and battery) which appellee claims was not committed in the officer’s presence....
