Case Name: Benjamin Rivers HARRELL, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1967-04-05
Citations: 197 So. 2d 505
Docket Number: No. 35790
Parties: Benjamin Rivers HARRELL, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Judges: THOMAS, ROBERTS and O’CON-NELL, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 197
Pages: 505–506

Head Matter:
Benjamin Rivers HARRELL, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 35790.
Supreme Court of Florida.
April 5, 1967.
Engel & Pollack, Miami, for petitioner.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Barry N. Semet, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Opinion:
DREW, Justice.
Petition for certiorari in this cause controverts an order of the district court dismissing an appeal from a judgment of conviction upon motion by the state showing appellant had pursued a motion for new tidal after filing notice of appeal. Jurisdiction of this Court is based upon conflict with State ex rel. Faircloth v. The District Court of Appeal, Fla.1966, 187 So.2d 890.
We conclude upon review of the cited opinion and related decisions that the appellate court erred in granting ap-pellee's motion on the stated ground. The controlling principles are concisely stated in the Faircloth opinion, supra, in recognition that "the filing of a notice of appeal vests in the appellate court complete and exclusive jurisdiction ; " that the appellant in this situation clearly waives his other post trial remedies; and failure to apply this rule to the pursuit of such inconsistent remedies "when both were filed by the same litigant would result in utter chaos in the appellate processes."
The decision in State ex rel. Owens v. Pearson is based upon the qualification inherent in the above statement that the timely post trial motion of another litigant may operate to render appellant's notice premature, the doctrine of waiver being clearly inapplicable against the other party.
The order of the appellate court is therefore quashed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance herewith.
THOMAS, ROBERTS and O'CON-NELL, JJ., concur.
THORNAL, C. J., dissents on jurisdiction. Would concur on merits.
. Bannister v. State, Fla.App.2d Dist.1962, 144 So.2d 853., Cf. Padgett v. State, Fla.App.1st Dist.1967, 197 So.2d 864, in apparent conflict with Bannister and with the decision of this Court in the case sub judice.
. Under Rule 3.13 F.A.R., 31 F.S.A. appeals, once taken, may be dismissed only by action taken in the appellate court and then only under conditions and in the-manner prescribed by the rule.
. Fla.1963, 156 So.2d 4.