Snell v. State, 522 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
Snell v. State, 522 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Abad-Godoy v. State (fladistctapp, 2012-10-22)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Abad-Godoy v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Snell v. State, 522 So.2d 407, 408 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).
discussed Cited "see" McDonnell v. Sanford Airport Authority
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Snell v. State, 522 So.2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (holding motion for rehearing rear-guing the same points on appeal after issuance of an affirmance without opinion is improper and an abuse of procedure).
discussed Cited "see" Marion v. Orlando Pain & Medical Rehabilitation
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Snell v. State, 522 So.2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (absent a written opinion, motion for rehearing cannot direct court to matters overlooked).
discussed Cited "see" Amador v. Walker
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Snell v. State, 522 So.2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (absent a written opinion, motion for rehearing cannot direct court to matters overlooked; re-argument improper); Banderas v. Advance Petroleum, Inc., 716 So.2d 876 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (motion should not be used to express displeasure with court; re-argument improper); Goter v. Brown, 682 So.2d 155, 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (motions for rehearing should merely direct court to matters overlooked, without argument or further advocacy); Elliott v. Elliott, 648 So.2d 135 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (rehearing motion should not re-argue matters, request c…
cited Cited "see" Boyne v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Snell v. State, 522 So.2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Brian SNELL
v.
STATE of Florida
No. 87-446.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Feb 2, 1988.
522 So. 2d 407
Dan R. Warren of Judge & Warren, P.A., Daytona Beach, for appellant., Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Belle B. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
Daniel, Dauksch, Sharp.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

Lead Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

SHARP, C.J., DAUKSCH and DANIEL, JJ., concurred.

Rehearing

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

DAUKSCH, Judge.

Appellant seeks a rehearing of his appeal wherein his conviction was affirmed without opinion.

As grounds for his motion for rehearing he says nothing more than what he said in his brief on appeal. This is an abuse of the procedure for rehearing and causes a waste of time for everyone concerned. Because this is not an isolated instance we write to discourage the practice.

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330(a) specifically prohibits the filing of a motion for rehearing such as was filed here. It says “[t]he motion shall not re-argue the merits of the court’s order.” The rule also requires the movant to “state with particularity the points of law or fact which the court has overlooked or misapprehended.” The rules governing attorneys generally provide that frivolous motions should not be made. To maintain that the court has overlooked something or misapprehended something when no written opinion is available to support the basis of the motion is less than persuasive, to put it nicely.

We agree with the opinion in State ex rel. Jaytex Realty Co. v. Green, 105 So.2d 817, 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958), cert. discharged, 112 So.2d 571 (Fla.1959) which says:

Certainly it is not the function of a petition for rehearing to furnish a medium through which counsel may advise the court that they disagree with its conclusion, to reargue matters already discussed in briefs and oral argument and necessarily considered by the court, or to request the court to change its mind as to a matter which has already received the careful attention of the judges, or to further delay the termination of litigation.

See also Whipple v. State, 431 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Dubowitz v. Century Village East, Inc., 381 So.2d 252, 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).

We note finally that appellant says in his motion for rehearing that “[wjithout the[*408] benefit of Oral Argument, the Court has overlooked the following points of fact ...” Appellee responds to this rather sarcastic remark by saying appellant’s request was not made until six months after the briefs were filed. If the request for oral argument had been made six months after the briefs were filed then appellee would be correct in saying the request was untimely. Fla.R.App.P. 9.320. Here, though, appellant filed no request for oral argument with this court.

THE MOTION IS STRICKEN.

SHARP, C.J., and DANIEL, J., concur.