Criminal Appeals Lawyer
Criminal appeals time limitations
The facts of every case are different, and whether the time limitations for filing an appeal or initiating a collateral proceeding has run or not depends on many different factors. The information on this page is very general. Anyone considering filing a criminal appeal or initiating a collateral proceeding should consult with a qualified and experienced criminal appeals lawyer before making any final decision on how best to proceed.
Appeals in Florida state cases
Generally speaking, under Florida law a defendant has 30 days to file a direct appeal of his or her criminal conviction and sentence. Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(3).
Appeals in federal criminal cases
When filing a direct appeal of a conviction and sentence in a federal criminal case, Fed. R. App. P. 4(b) provides that you have 14 days from the entry of the judgment on the docket sheet (as opposed to the actual sentencing hearing) to file the notice of appeal. However, Fed. R. App. P. (4)(b)(4) allows an appellant to get additional time in certain cases and provides that:
Motion for extension of time
Upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may—before or after the time has expired, with or without motion and notice–extend the time to file a notice of appeal for a period not to exceed 30 days from the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed by [Federal] Rule [of Appellate Procedure] 4(b). (Emphasis added).
Recent oral arguments before the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals
Opinion: REVERSED (HEALTH-CARE FRAUD) “We therefore vacate Carlos’s convictions and remand for a judgment of acquittal of Carlos on all counts.”
Vergara Castano v. State
Attorney Hernández before the Florida Supreme Court, Vergara Castano v. State. Opinion. “In Castano v. State, 65 So. 3d 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011), the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of Vergara Castano’s postconviction motion. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. In this timely filed initial postconviction motion, Castano raised the same claim raised in Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), which held that defense counsel was deficient for failing to advise his client of mandatory deportation consequences for pleading guilty. Castano’s postconviction proceeding was pending when the United States Supreme Court issued Padilla. Therefore, although we held that Padilla does not apply retroactively in Hernández v. State, Nos. SC11-941 & SC11-1357 (Fla. Nov. 21, 2012), Padilla does apply to Castano’s pending case. On that basis, we quash the Fifth District’s decision and remand for further proceedings.”
Our goal is to be a tireless advocate for the client’s interests, and dedicated to the principles of excellence in legal research, trial preparation and the art of advocacy. To always have direct personal contact with the client, be available to the client, and respect both the client and the importance of the client’s case. To provide the highest quality representation at a fair fee.
For more information and to better assist you, please contact my office at 407-682-5553 for a free initial consultation
This web site has been designed to provide educational information only and is not intended to offer legal advice. Every case is unique and outcomes will vary depending upon the facts and legal issues of your case. Please do not make any decisions about any legal matter without consulting with an attorney first. There is no Attorney Client relationship formed by any use of the information provided