CHRISTINA BALTODANO
v.
OSCAR I. BALTODANO
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Timeliness Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Christina Baltodano challenges an order that denied her petition for a domestic violence injunction. But the challenged order was on a motion for rehearing, so this appeal is unauthorized. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(4) (“Orders disposing of motions for rehearing . . . are not reviewable separately from a review of the final order.”). Although a timely motion for rehearing pushes back the deadline to challenge a final order, Baltodano’s motion was untimely and failed to give her the extension. See Bramblett v. State, 15 So. 3d 839, 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Because the appeal came more than thirty days after rendition of the final order, any challenge to the final order is untimely. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b). In short, we lack jurisdiction.
DISMISSED.
B.L. THOMAS, NORDBY, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur. _____________________________