BRIAN BIEHLE, PETITIONER,
v.
PENNY BIEHLE, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Rehearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this pending child custody proceeding, petitioner Brian Biehle seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order abating proceedings. We summarily dismiss his petition for writ of certiorari sua sponte as untimely because he relied upon an unauthorized motion for rehearing.
The trial court’s abatement order in the instant case is plainly interlocutory. The problem for Mr. Biehle is that he filed an unauthorized motion for rehearing, which does not toll the time for seeking appellate review of an interlocutory order. See, e.g., Vliegenthart v. Grover, 575 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (motion for rehearing of interlocutory order is unauthorized and does not toll the time for seeking certiorari review). The trial court’s order was rendered on February 26, 1997. However, Mr. Biehle filed an unauthorized motion for rehearing on March 9, 1997, which the trial court denied on April 3,1997. He failed to file the instant petition for writ of certiorari until April 25, 1997 when it should have been filed by March 28, 1997. Accordingly, his petition must be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as untimely.
DISMISSED.
DAUKSCH, GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hylleberg v. State, 729 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…not a viable defense. AFFIRMED. W. SHARP, PETERSON and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . Voluntary intoxication is a defense to specific intent murder; State v. Bias, 653 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1995); Gardner v. State, 480 So. 2d 91 (Fla.1985); Stevens v. State, 693 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), and to kidnaping, Sochor v. State, 619 So. 2d 285 (Fla.1993); Worden v. State, 688 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). . Specifically, Hylleberg had implicitly threatened to kill the victim in at least one letter to his mother, whe…
-
Hylleberg v. State, 700 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…s contention that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for misadvising him that voluntary intoxication is not a defense to murder or kidnapping. This court recently noted in Stevens v. State, 693 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) that voluntary intoxication is a defense to the specific intent crime of first-degree murder. See also State v. Bias, 653 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1995); Gardner v. State, 480 So. 2d 91 (Fla.1985). Voluntary intoxication is also a defense…
-
Evans v. State, 706 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…edure 3.850. His allegations that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to present a possible involuntary intoxication defense are general and vague. They do not prima facie establish an ineffective assistance ground. See Stevens v. State, 693 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). The record refutes Evans’ allegation that he was unaware of the consequences of being sentenced as an habitual offender. Evans’ stipulation that he qualified as an habitual offender renders any failure by the trial court to make…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Donald H. Vliegenthart, M.D. v. Grover, 575 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)