MICHAEL ALLEN KOSEK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
MICHAEL ALLEN KOSEK, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
640 So. 2d 1127
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1994)
Caution
Cited by 23 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We dismiss this appeal of the denial of Michael A. Kosek’s motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. His post-denial motions did not toll the time for filing his appeal and he did so untimely. Ketion v. State, 599 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Griffis v. State, 593 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Newman v. State, 610 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
DISMISSED.
HARRIS, C.J., and PETERSON and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (23 total)
-
State v. Donn A. Duncan, 894 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 2004)…timony and the medical examiner’s autopsy photographs that had been introduced earlier, and therefore its prejudicial impact far outweighed its probative value. He relies upon two cases, Cave v. State, 660 So. 2d 705 (Fla.1995), and Taylor v. State, 640 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), to support his argument. Duncan’s reliance upon Cave and Taylor is misplaced. In Cave, this Court held that the use of a videotaped reenactment of the crime during resentencing was harmful error. See Cave, 660 So. 2d at 708-09.…
-
Brookins v. State, 704 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…r of rights can be admitted in evidence, but the burden is on the prosecution to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made. Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 92 S.Ct. 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 618; Taylor v. State, 640 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Whether a waiver of Miranda rights was knowing and voluntary is an issue that has two components. First, the evidence must show that the waiver was a free choice by the suspect and that it was not produced by police intimidatio…
-
Simmons v. State, 684 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…it is not authorized and therefore does not have a tolling effect. See Gaylord v. State, 678 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Mathis v. State, 674 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Simmons v. State, 657 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Kosek v. State, 640 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). This is in contrast with motions for rehearing filed in rule 3.850 cases.1 Unlike rule 3.850, rule 3.800 does not require the trial court to advise a movant that he or she has but 30 days in which to file an appeal. Thus the ab…
Previewing 3 of 23 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Griffis v. State, 593 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Newman v. State, 610 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Frow v. State, 610 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Smith v. State, 599 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Decarr v. State, 599 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)