GEORGE M. LUTTRELL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
The court dismissed the appeal for failure to timely file the notice of appeal because the motion for rehearing was served one day late, which did not suspend the time for filing the notice of appeal.
An untimely motion for rehearing does not suspend the rendition of an order and therefore does not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal.
[1] An untimely motion for rehearing does not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal because it does not suspend the rendition of the underlying order.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“An untimely motion for rehearing does not suspend rendition of the order to be reviewed and thus does not extend the time for filing the notice of appeal.”
Court's explanation of why appellant's late motion for rehearing did not extend the appeal deadline.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal on October 24, 1990, regarding an order denying his petition for writ of mandamus rendered on August 27, 1990. Appe…
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.530(B) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon the court’s own motion, we dismiss appellant’s appeal for failure to timely file the notice of appeal.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal on October 24, 1990. The notice stated that the order being appealed was rendered on August 27, 1990. This court issued an order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to timely file the notice of appeal. Appellant has responded and argues that the notice of appeal was timely filed because he filed a motion for rehearing from the order denying his petition for writ of mandamus and that the notice of appeal was filed within 30 days from rendition of the order denying the motion for rehearing. While appellant is correct that the notice of appeal was filed within 30 days from rendition of the order which denied the motion for rehearing, appellant’s argument is to no avail. What appellant overlooks is that his motion for rehearing was not timely served. The order which denied appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus was rendered by the lower tribunal on August 27, 1990. In accordance with the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(b), appellant’s motion for rehearing, to be timely, had to have been served no later than September 6, 1990. The motion for rehearing was not served until September 7, 1990. An untimely motion for rehearing does not suspend rendition of the order to be reviewed and thus does not extend the time for filing the notice of appeal. E.g., King v. State, 423 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed.
SHIVERS, C.J., and NIMMONS and MINER, JJ., concur.