Even though there is a strong presumption that a trial was conducted properly, trial courts often get it wrong. That is where appellate courts step in. Their role is to review decisions made by trial courts and correct errors, or if a court of last resort, to settle conflicts between lower courts on issues of law.
It is not the place to re-litigate; that gets you nowhere. It is the place to argue the trial court got the law wrong on one or more issues.
What Are Appellate Courts?
Generally, there are two levels of appellate courts to hear criminal appeals. The first level, the intermediate court, is a court of error correction. These courts are charged with correcting individual trial errors. They generally have to hear your appeal. Their task is to review whether the trial court applied the prevailing law correctly.
The second is a court of last resort. These courts generally have discretion to take a case. Their job is to settle conflicting interpretations of law amongst lower courts, or to address issues of national significance. For example, the Supreme Court of the United States may grant review if an intermediate appellate court decision for one of the following reasons:
A lower intermediate court has decided a case that conflicts with another intermediate court, a state court of last resort, or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power;
A state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or a federal intermediate appellate court;
A state court or federal intermediate court has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by the Supreme Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of the Supreme Court.
Florida courts and military courts operate in the same way.
Why Do Mistakes Happen?
Judges and lawyers are human, and humans make mistakes. Sometimes, the trial court might misinterpret the law or apply the wrong legal standard. There are standards of review that are considered on appeal.
Harmless Error
The trial counsel objected to something and was overruled. In this situation, the appellate court reviews the error to determine that, even if error, did it substantially impact the Defendant's rights.
Plain Error
This is when your appellate attorney recognizes a potential trial error that was not objected to during trial. Here, you must not only show there was error that substantially impacted the Defendant's rights, but the error was so clear and obvious it deserves the requested remedy.
De Novo
Regardless of whether objected to or not, questions of whether the trial court understood the law are generally reviewed de novo, meaning no deference is given to the trial court below. The law is what it is.
Abuse of Discretion
These questions generally come up when there is a question whether the trial court properly applied the agreed upon law, or whether it relied upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact.
The Appeal Process
In civilian court, like Florida, notices of appeal must generally be filed within 30 days of the final judgment by the trial court. Regardless, it must be filed quickly. There is more time given to review the transcript and raise errors to the reviewing court through an appellate brief. That is where the magic happens. And if lucky, you may get an oral argument to address additional questions.
Appellate Practice Is a Specific Skill Set
Unless you waive your right to appeal in a plea, trial is never the final answer. Reviewing a transcript and addressing errors on appeal is a separate, specific skill. This is your last stand. Experience matters.
Comments