LETARIUS MATHIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 held that a motion for rehearing of an order denying a motion to correct sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is not authorized and does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal.
Mathis filed a motion to correct sentence, which the trial court summarily denied. Mathis then filed a motion for rehearing, which was also denied. He…
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 Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) Motion To Correct Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Mathis appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct sentence and his amended motion, both filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He argued that the trial court erred in using one seoresheet to sentence him for criminal offenses committed in 1993 and 1994, resulting in an excessive total score and sentence.
We are unable to address the merits of these issues because Mathis filed a motion for rehearing of the trial court’s summary order, rather than an appeal. The summary, order was rendered on January 12,1998; the motion for rehearing was filed January 23, 1998; the rehearing was denied February 17, 1998; and the notice of appeal was filed March 12,1998.
Unlike rehearing motions addressed to orders rendered pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, rehearing motions addressed to orders rendered pursuant to rule 3.800(a) are not authorized, and they do not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal. See, e.g., Kosek v. State, 640 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. dismissed, 648 So. 2d 723 (Fla.1994); Newman v. State, 610 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Griffis v. State, 593 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Thus, Mathis’ appeal is untimely.
We have previously pointed out this “trap” for the unwary, but until the rules are changed, we are bound by established precedent. Since Mathis’ appeal is untimely, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. Therefore, we have no choice but to dismiss the cause.
DISMISSED.
GRIFFIN, C.J., concurs.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs in conclusion only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harris v. State, 911 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…0 (Fla. 4th DCA [*225] 2003); Turner v. State, 651 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Judge Sharp repeatedly suggested an amendment to rule 3.800(a) to eliminate this “trap.” See MacPherson v. State, 843 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Mathis v. State, 720 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). The rule was finally amended to permit motions for rehearing, effective January 1, 2005. See Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 886 So. 2d 197, 199-200 (Fla.2004). At this time, the only remaining anomaly in…
-
MacPherson v. State, 843 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…post-conviction relief, there is no provision in rule 3.800(a) “authorizing” a motion for rehearing and thus it follows, motions for rehearing in rule 3.800 proceedings do not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal. See, e.g., Mathis v. State, 720 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Gaylord v. State, 678 So. 2d 481 (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), rev. dismissed, 648 So. 2d 723 (Fla.1994). [*355] Yet, this same mistak…
-
Brown v. State, 769 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. King v. State, 754 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Mathis v. State, 720 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Simmons v. State, 684 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Dawson-Knapp v. State, 679 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Griffis v. State, 593 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).…
Previewing 3 of 9 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)
- Kosek v. State, 640 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Taylor v. State, 640 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Newman v. State, 610 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Frow v. State, 610 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)