CARLOS CORDERO
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Carlos Cordero appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), but the appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because his motion for rehearing was untimely and did not toll the rendition of the underlying order.
The appellate court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the merits of the appeal because the motion for rehearing was untimely and therefore failed to toll rendition of the underlying order, making the notice of appeal untimely.
[1] A motion for enlargement of time filed before a motion for rehearing does not necessarily render a subsequently filed motion for rehearing timely.
[2] An untimely motion for rehearing does not toll rendition of the underlying order.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Because Watkins's motion for rehearing was untimely, it failed to toll rendition of the trial court's September 28, 2016, order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence.”
Establishes the core principle that an untimely rehearing motion does not toll rendition of the underlying order, which is fatal to jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCordero filed a motion for enlargement of time prior to filing his motion for rehearing. The trial court denied the motion for enlargement of time. As…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Enlargement Of Time cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed March 26, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-1227 Lower Tribunal No. F00-11889B ________________
Carlos Cordero, Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Michelle Delancy, Judge.
Carlos Cordero, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Chief Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before MILLER, GORDO, and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Appellant, Carlos Cordero, challenges an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) and rehearing on the same. Cordero filed a motion for enlargement of time prior to filing his motion for rehearing. The court denied the motion. As a result, Cordero’s subsequently filed rehearing motion was untimely and did not toll rendition of the underlying order. See Watkins v. State, 217 So. 3d 1135, 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“Because Watkins’s motion for rehearing was untimely, it failed to toll rendition of the trial court’s September 28, 2016, order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence. Watkins’s November 16, 2016 Notice of Appeal therefore was not filed within thirty days from rendition of the trial court’s September 28, 2016, order.”); see also Kellom v. State, 964 So. 2d 743, 743–44 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (“As the lower tribunal did not rule on appellant’s motion for extension of time to file his motion for rehearing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.050, appellant’s motion for rehearing was not timely filed.
Therefore, rendition of the order denying appellant’s postconviction relief motion was not postponed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(H)(1), and appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.”). We therefore lack jurisdiction to entertain the merits of this appeal and, accordingly, dismiss this case without prejudice to the filing of a
3 petition for a belated appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c). See Watkins, 217 So. 3d at 1138. Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Watkins v. State, 217 So. 3d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Kellom v. State, 964 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)