State v. Parrish

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Parrish

551 So. 2d 602, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2571, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6206, 1989 WL 133484

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 8, 1989

DocketNo. 89-2586

StatusPublished

This text of 551 So. 2d 602 (State v. Parrish) 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. Parrish, 551 So. 2d 602, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2571, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6206, 1989 WL 133484 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

UPON MOTION TO DISMISS STATE’S APPEAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

ANSTEAD, Judge.

We grant the appellee’s motion to dismiss. This is an attempted appeal from an order scheduling an evidentiary hearing on appellee’s motion for post-conviction relief. We find no authority for the state to appeal this non-final order, and disagree with appellant’s claim that State v. Sireci, 502 So.2d 1221 (Fla.1987) authorizes this appeal. In our view, the Supreme Court accepted review in Sired because the order on review not only scheduled an evidentia-ry hearing, but also stayed appellant’s scheduled execution. While the state has a right to appeal a final order entered on a motion for post-conviction relief, we find no [603]*603authority for an appeal from an order that schedules such a motion for an evidentiary hearing.

Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the state’s appeal. We have issued this opinion so that the state may have an opportunity to seek Supreme Court review of our interpretation of Sired

WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur.

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

UPON MOTION TO DISMISS STATE’S APPEAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

ANSTEAD, Judge.

We grant the appellee’s motion to dismiss. This is an attempted appeal from an order scheduling an evidentiary hearing on appellee’s motion for post-conviction relief. We find no authority for the state to appeal this non-final order, and disagree with appellant’s claim that State v. Sireci, 502 So.2d 1221 (Fla.1987) authorizes this appeal. In our view, the Supreme Court accepted review in Sired because the order on review not only scheduled an evidentia-ry hearing, but also stayed appellant’s scheduled execution. While the state has a right to appeal a final order entered on a motion for post-conviction relief, we find no [603]*603authority for an appeal from an order that schedules such a motion for an evidentiary hearing.

Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the state’s appeal. We have issued this opinion so that the state may have an opportunity to seek Supreme Court review of our interpretation of Sired

WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

551 So. 2d 602, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2571, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6206, 1989 WL 133484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-parrish-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack