From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Capone v. Florida Bd. of Regents

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Dec 27, 2000
774 So. 2d 825 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Summary

reaffirming that the Fourth District Court of Appeal's discretionary and convenience practice of accepting pleadings as timely filed if filed by 9:00 in the morning the day after pleading was due, was never intended to apply to jurisdictional pleadings such as notices of appeal and petitions for writs of certiorari. “The previous-day filing procedure applies only to non-jurisdictional papers.”

Summary of this case from State v. Melendez

Opinion

No. 4D00-3827.

December 27, 2000.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Jorge Labarga, J.

Isidro M. Garcia of Garcia, Elkins Boehringer, P.A., West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

No response required for respondent.


We dismiss this petition for writ of certiorari as untimely filed. We write to explain to the bar that our policy of accepting papers filed with the Clerk by 9:00 a.m. as having been actually filed on the previous day cannot extend the jurisdictional time limits for the filing of petitions for certiorari, and other original writs.

On October 26, 2000, our Clerk's Office received the instant petition for writ of certiorari before 9:00 a.m. The petition received a filing date stamp for the previous day, October 25, 2000, a date thirty days after rendition of the order to which the instant petition pertains. The filing on October 26, 2000, was untimely. See Fla. R.App.P. 9.100(c)(1). In filing this petition on the thirty-first day, it appears that the petitioner erroneously took advantage of a policy of this court to accommodate lawyers filing briefs and other non-jurisdictional papers.

For many years, this court had a drop box in which papers could be delivered to the court after hours. Papers so delivered would, if placed in the box before 7:30 a.m., be stamped as filed the previous business day. The box was routinely opened at 7:30 a.m., one-half hour before the Clerk's Office actually opens for business. Only papers actually placed in the box before 7:30 a.m. were considered filed as of the previous day. Because of our concerns for the security of people using this box, however, we eliminated it some time ago and adopted in its place a policy of accepting papers filed with the Clerk by 9:00 a.m. as having been filed on the previous day. We intend to continue with this latter procedure.

However, some lawyers are delivering original proceeding papers, such as notices of appeal, petitions for certiorari, and the like, to our Clerk before 9:00 a.m. and requesting that such papers be deemed filed as of the previous day. Our policy was adopted as a convenience for parties and their lawyers to avoid the expense of using a delivery service or driving to our court from distant parts of the district when filing routine, non-jurisdictional papers such as briefs, responses to orders, etc. It was not our intent to apply this procedure to jurisdictional papers like notices of appeal or petitions for extraordinary writs that are governed by a jurisdictional requirement of filing on or before a certain date. We hereby reconfirm that intention. The previous-day filing procedure applies only to non-jurisdictional papers.

While this court may adopt local rules and practices that pertain to nonjurisdictional matters within its discretion, we may not usurp the constitutional power of the supreme court to "adopt rules for the practice and procedure in all courts including the time for seeking appellate review." Art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. Neither trial nor appellate courts in this state are authorized to extend the time for filing notices of appeal, "no matter what reason or method is employed in an attempt to do so." Congregation Temple De Hirsch of Seattle, Washington v. Aronson, 128 So.2d 585, 586 (Fla. 1961).

The petition is dismissed.

POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Capone v. Florida Bd. of Regents

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Dec 27, 2000
774 So. 2d 825 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

reaffirming that the Fourth District Court of Appeal's discretionary and convenience practice of accepting pleadings as timely filed if filed by 9:00 in the morning the day after pleading was due, was never intended to apply to jurisdictional pleadings such as notices of appeal and petitions for writs of certiorari. “The previous-day filing procedure applies only to non-jurisdictional papers.”

Summary of this case from State v. Melendez
Case details for

Capone v. Florida Bd. of Regents

Case Details

Full title:Laurene CAPONE, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA BOARD OF REGENTS, Respondent

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Dec 27, 2000

Citations

774 So. 2d 825 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Citing Cases

Strax Rejuvenation v. Shield

Unlike the instant case, in Harrell there was no dispute that the clerk's time stamp was accurate. Shield…

State v. Melendez

As such, an untimely Petition divests this court of jurisdiction over the untimely filed Petition and it…