Opinion ID: 1955068
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECTION 924.07(1)( l )

Text: Article V, section 4(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution vests in this Court exclusive power to determine the authority of district courts of appeal to hear appeals of non-final orders in both civil and criminal cases: District courts of appeal shall have jurisdiction to hear appeals, that may be taken as a matter of right, from final judgments or orders of trial courts, including those entered on review of administrative action, not directly appealable to the supreme court or a circuit court. They may review interlocutory orders in such cases to the extent provided by rules adopted by the supreme court. (Emphasis supplied.) In State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489, 489 (Fla.1972), we held that another subsection of section 924.07 [1] was unconstitutional because the jurisdiction of the District Court to entertain such interlocutory appeals may be granted only by rule of this Court. In Smith, we relied on the prior constitutional provision, article V, section 5(3), Florida Constitution (1968), which contained a provision substantially similar to that now found in article V, section 4(b)(1). [2] As we unequivocally explained in Smith: The Constitution does not authorize the legislature to provide for interlocutory review. Any statute purporting to grant interlocutory appeals is clearly a declaration of legislative policy and no more. Until and unless the Supreme Court of Florida adopts such a statute as its own... the purported enactment is void. 260 So.2d at 491 (quoting State v. Smith, 254 So.2d 402, 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)). Ten years later in R.J.B. v. State, 408 So.2d 1048, 1050 (Fla.1982), we held another statute unconstitutional that we construed to authorize a juvenile to take an immediate appeal of an order waiving the juvenile court's jurisdiction and authorizing the juvenile to be tried as an adult. In R.J.B., we relied on the reasoning of Smith and the plain language of article V, section 4(b)(1). See R.J.B., 408 So.2d at 1050. We interpreted that constitutional provision as vesting this Court with the sole authority of deciding when appeals may be taken from interlocutory orders. Id. Consistent with our prior case law and the unequivocal language of article V, section 4(b)(1), we find that this Court alone has the power to define the scope of interlocutory appeals, and, therefore, section 924.07(1)( l ) is unconstitutional to the extent that it provides the State with the right to an interlocutory appeal not provided by court rule.