Sills v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sills v. State

718 So. 2d 305, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11531, 1998 WL 598366

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 11, 1998

DocketNo. 98-02971

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 718 So. 2d 305 (Sills v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sills v. State, 718 So. 2d 305, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11531, 1998 WL 598366 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Steven Sills challenges the trial court’s orders denying his motion for postconviction relief and motion for rehearing. Regrettably, the order denying the motion for rehearing is a rubber stamp of the variety that this court has disapproved for use in criminal cases, for orders which are appealable, on at least seven prior occasions, all originating from Hillsborough County, as does this appeal. See Hardwick v. State, 702 So.2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Washington v. State, 694 So.2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Turner v. State, 667 So.2d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Parnell v. State, 642 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Gibson v. State, 642 So.2d 48 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. Sullivan, 640 So.2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. Moore, 563 So.2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

As we have said in the past, this type of order is generally incapable of being rendered — and indeed this one was not — and, if riot rendered, it is not appealable.

We dismiss this appeal and direct the trial court to respond to Sills’ motion for rehearing with a rendered order capable of being appealed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FULMER and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Steven Sills challenges the trial court’s orders denying his motion for postconviction relief and motion for rehearing. Regrettably, the order denying the motion for rehearing is a rubber stamp of the variety that this court has disapproved for use in criminal cases, for orders which are appealable, on at least seven prior occasions, all originating from Hillsborough County, as does this appeal. See Hardwick v. State, 702 So.2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Washington v. State, 694 So.2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Turner v. State, 667 So.2d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Parnell v. State, 642 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Gibson v. State, 642 So.2d 48 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. Sullivan, 640 So.2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. Moore, 563 So.2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

As we have said in the past, this type of order is generally incapable of being rendered — and indeed this one was not — and, if riot rendered, it is not appealable.

We dismiss this appeal and direct the trial court to respond to Sills’ motion for rehearing with a rendered order capable of being appealed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FULMER and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

718 So. 2d 305, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11531, 1998 WL 598366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sills-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack