Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

330 So. 2d 535

Docket No. BB-305.

State v. Brown

STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Joe Leon BROWN, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided April 22, 1976.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1976-04-22

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“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; (4) A ruling on a question of law when the defendant is convicted and appeals from the judgment; (5) The sentence, on the ground that it is illegal; (6) A judgment discharging a prisoner on habeas corpus; (7) An order adjudicating a defendant insane under the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure; or (8) All other pretrial orders, except that it may not take more than 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 or admission made by a defendant. The appeal must be taken before the trial. (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. If the trial court determines that the evidence, confession, or admission that is the subject of the order would materially assist the state in proving its case against another defendant and that the pr”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 476 So. 2d 144 - State v. C.C., 476 So. 2d 144 - State v. CC

“[t]he state may appeal from ... [a] ruling granting a motion for judgment of acquittal after a jury verdict.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 711 So. 2d 244 - Hudson v. State

Relies on State v. Smith · Whidden v. State · 142 So. 2d 724 - In re Florida Appellate Rules 1962 Revision

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1976-04-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1998

17 state decisions

160197619801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appellant.

¶2Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender; and J. Craig Williams, Asst. Public Defender, Jacksonville, for appellee.

¶3

On Motion to Quash

¶4RAWLS, Acting Chief Judge.

¶5The notice of appeal filed in this case recites: "The nature of the Order appealed from is an Order granting Defendant's Motion of Acquittal Not Withstanding Verdict." Appellee-defendant Brown contends that the state has no right to appeal a judgment of acquittal in a criminal proceeding, and thus his motion to quash the instant appeal should be granted. We agree.

¶6*536 Appellate review of any order or judgment entered by a trial court is not a right derived from the common law; it is derived from the sovereign. State v. Smith,260 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1972). The state's right to seek appellate review in a criminal case is purely statutory and is found in Florida Statute 924.07. Whidden v. State,159 Fla. 691, 32 So.2d 577 (1947).[1] Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.380(c) authorizes a defendant to make or renew a motion for judgment of acquittal after a jury has returned a verdict of guilty. The trial judge's challenged order acquitted the defendant, therefore, the state is seeking to appeal from a final judgment of acquittal in a criminal proceeding.

¶7In oral argument which was directed by this court, the state conceded that the sole statutory language which might be construed to authorize the instant appeal is stated in subsection (1) of Florida Statute 924.07, viz: "An order dismissing an indictment or information or any count thereof;" and then reasons that the instant order may be construed as being within the purview of the cited rule. We decline to place such a tortuous construction upon the plain language and meaning of "indictment or information".

¶8Finally, the state urges this court to in the alternative treat the notice of appeal as a petition for writ of common law certiorari and review the controverted order. As stated above, appellate review of a judgment of acquittal entered in a criminal proceeding is not authorized. The state's ore tenus motion for common law certiorari is denied.

¶9Appellee's motion to quash this appeal is granted.

¶10MILLS and SMITH, JJ., concur.

NOTES

¶11[1] Also see In Re Florida Appellate Rules 1962 Revision,142 So.2d 724 (Fla. 1962), wherein the Supreme Court stated: "All statutes not superseded hereby or in conflict herewith shall remain in effect as rules promulgated by the Supreme Court."

/330/so2d/535 · .json · Public domain