State v. Cajunste

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Cajunste

532 So. 2d 687, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2003, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3765, 1988 WL 88524

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 24, 1988

DocketNo. 87-3409

StatusPublished

This text of 532 So. 2d 687 (State v. Cajunste) 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

State v. Cajunste, 532 So. 2d 687, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2003, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3765, 1988 WL 88524 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

HALL, Judge.

The court on its own motion entered an order to show cause to the state why this appeal should not be dismissed for being untimely filed. The state responded that the appeal was timely filed from the date of the entry of written reasons for the downward departure, State v. Williams, 463 So.2d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

In Williams the Third District held that because the essence of an appeal by the state pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(l)(J) is the departure by the trial court from the recommended guidelines range for invalid reasons, the propriety of such a departure sentence cannot be known until the written reasons for departure are given. Thus, the Third District held that an appeal filed by the state more than fifteen days from the filing of the judgment and sentence, but within fifteen days of the filing of the written reasons for departure, was timely.

Even if we were to agree with Williams, it is not applicable to the instant case because the record reveals that the score-sheet used at the appellant’s sentencing hearing and filed with the appellant’s judgment and sentence includes written reasons for departure. Consequently, because the state did not file its notice of appeal of this cause within fifteen days of the filing of the appellant’s judgment and sentence, we do not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.

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

ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

HALL, Judge.

The court on its own motion entered an order to show cause to the state why this appeal should not be dismissed for being untimely filed. The state responded that the appeal was timely filed from the date of the entry of written reasons for the downward departure, State v. Williams, 463 So.2d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

In Williams the Third District held that because the essence of an appeal by the state pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(l)(J) is the departure by the trial court from the recommended guidelines range for invalid reasons, the propriety of such a departure sentence cannot be known until the written reasons for departure are given. Thus, the Third District held that an appeal filed by the state more than fifteen days from the filing of the judgment and sentence, but within fifteen days of the filing of the written reasons for departure, was timely.

Even if we were to agree with Williams, it is not applicable to the instant case because the record reveals that the score-sheet used at the appellant’s sentencing hearing and filed with the appellant’s judgment and sentence includes written reasons for departure. Consequently, because the state did not file its notice of appeal of this cause within fifteen days of the filing of the appellant’s judgment and sentence, we do not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

532 So. 2d 687, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2003, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3765, 1988 WL 88524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cajunste-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack