924.071
Additional grounds for appeal by the state; time for taking; stay of cause.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
924.071 Additional grounds for appeal by the state; time for taking; stay of cause.—
(1) The state may appeal from a pretrial order dismissing a search warrant or suppressing evidence, however obtained, or which directly and expressly conflicts with an appellate decision of a district court of appeal or of the Florida Supreme Court. The appeal must be taken before the trial.
(2) An appeal by the state from a pretrial order shall stay the case against each defendant upon whose application the order was made until the appeal is determined. If the trial court determines that the evidence, confession, or admission that is the subject of the order would materially assist the state in proving its case against another defendant and that the prosecuting attorney intends to use it for that purpose, the court shall stay the case of that defendant until the appeal is determined. A defendant in custody whose case is stayed either automatically or by order of the court shall be released on his or her own recognizance pending the appeal if he or she is charged with a bailable offense.
History.—ss. 1, 2, ch. 67-123; s. 1, ch. 69-267; s. 149, ch. 70-339; s. 2, ch. 90-239; s. 1554, ch. 97-102.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 69
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: State v. Jenkins
State v. Jenkins (1980)
“071(2), Florida Statutes, grants the state an automatic stay, reasoning: [I]t is obvious that the portion of Fla. Stat. § 924.071 (2), which provides for an automatic stay during the pendency of such an appeal has been superseded by the provisions of the rule.”
State v. Pearce (1976)
“3 b: "Appeals pursuant to Section 924.071, Florida Statutes 1967, shall be taken within [30 days] .”
State v. Smith (1972)
“Appeals pursuant to Section 924.071, Florida Statutes 1967, shall be taken within the time prescribed in subsection a.”
Craig v. State (1987)
“§ 924.071(1), Fla. Stat. (1981). Moreover, if the state had wanted to establish the admissibility of the confession in case of a new trial, it could have cross-appealed the ruling in connection with this appeal by appellant.”
State v. Creighton (1985)
“[4] Section 924.071, Florida Statutes (1981), provides additional grounds for appeal by the state in criminal cases, none of which is applicable here: (1) The state may appeal from a pretrial order dismissing a search warrant, suppressing evidence obtained by search and seizure,…”
State v. McMahon (2012)
“The grounds for appeal by the State set forth in section 924.071, Florida Statutes (2009), are not applicable in this case.”
Blore v. Fierro (1994)
“It is important to note that, while this Court is given exclusive rulemaking authority over interlocutory appeals to the district courts of appeal, the Constitution does not provide this Court with such authority for appeals from the county court to the circuit court. The…”
State v. Oliver (1979)
“§ 924.071(1), Fla. Stat. (1977). The central question presented for review is whether the police retrieval of evidence discarded in the public streets by a defendant (a) after being illegally ordered to stop by the police but (b) before the police have begun a physical search of…”
Carroll v. State (1971)
“Instead, the automatic stay proceeding afforded the state is contained in Fla. Stat. § 924.071 , F.S.A., providing in pertinent part: "(1) The state may appeal from a pretrial order quashing a search warrant or suppressing evidence * * * or suppressing a confession or admission…”
State v. Setzler (1995)
“" § 924.071(1), Fla. Stat. (1993). A reviewing court is bound by the trial court's findings of fact even if only implicit made after a suppression hearing, unless they are clearly erroneous.”
State v. Pettis (1988)
“140(c)(1)(B) and section 924.071(1) provide a remedy for the state even though a reciprocal interlocutory right of appeal is not provided to the defendant for an erroneous refusal to suppress evidence.”
Tucker v. State (1978)
“1975), the court below correctly determined that the automatic statutory stay would not be applicable to appeals of pre-trial orders other than those specified in Section 924.071(1). 344 So.2d at 286 n. 2.”
— 924.071(1) — 23 cases
Craig v. State (1987)
“§ 924.071(1), Fla. Stat. (1981). Moreover, if the state had wanted to establish the admissibility of the confession in case of a new trial, it could have cross-appealed the ruling in connection with this appeal by appellant.”
State v. Oliver (1979)
“§ 924.071(1), Fla. Stat. (1977). The central question presented for review is whether the police retrieval of evidence discarded in the public streets by a defendant (a) after being illegally ordered to stop by the police but (b) before the police have begun a physical search of…”
Blore v. Fierro (1994)
“It is important to note that, while this Court is given exclusive rulemaking authority over interlocutory appeals to the district courts of appeal, the Constitution does not provide this Court with such authority for appeals from the county court to the circuit court. The…”
State v. Setzler (1995)
“" § 924.071(1), Fla. Stat. (1993). A reviewing court is bound by the trial court's findings of fact even if only implicit made after a suppression hearing, unless they are clearly erroneous.”
State v. Pettis (1988)
“140(c)(1)(B) and section 924.071(1) provide a remedy for the state even though a reciprocal interlocutory right of appeal is not provided to the defendant for an erroneous refusal to suppress evidence.”
— 924.071(1)(k) — 2 cases
State v. M.K. (2001)
State v. MK (2001)
— 924.071(2) — 10 cases
State v. Jenkins (1980)
“071(2), Florida Statutes, grants the state an automatic stay, reasoning: [I]t is obvious that the portion of Fla. Stat. § 924.071 (2), which provides for an automatic stay during the pendency of such an appeal has been superseded by the provisions of the rule.”
State v. Pearce (1976)
“3 b: "Appeals pursuant to Section 924.071, Florida Statutes 1967, shall be taken within [30 days] .”
Tucker v. State (1978)
“1975), the court below correctly determined that the automatic statutory stay would not be applicable to appeals of pre-trial orders other than those specified in Section 924.071(1). 344 So.2d at 286 n. 2.”
Jenkins v. State (1977)
Schuty v. State (1973)
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.