JORGE LUIS PEREZ, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• State v. Gaines, 770 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 2000)
  …d. S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97, 99 (Fla.1974). Therefore, an order or ruling suppressing evidence at trial is a non-final order because judicial labor is still required to effectuate a termination of the case. Cf. State v. Delvalle, 745 So. 2d 541, 542 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (finding an order granting the defendant’s rule 3.800(a) motion was not a final order where the defendant had not been resen-tenced and judicial labor was still required). Specifically, in this case, when the trial court gr…
• Jordan v. State, 81 So. 3d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
  …g after a successful rule 3.800(a) motion is a de novo proceeding); but cf. State v. Huerta, 38 So. 3d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Adams v. State, 949 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); State v. Rudolf, 821 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); State v. Delvalle, 745 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Accordingly, the order was subject to challenge only by way of a timely motion for rehearing or an appeal. Cf. Lormeus v. State, 10 So. 3d 190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (noting that an order granting the defendant’s rule 3.800(a) moti…
• State v. Rudolf, 821 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
  …ion did not create a new, separate proceeding. Instead, it is a motion filed in a continuation of the original criminal proceeding. We agree with the Fourth District that this type of order is a nonfi-nal, nonappealable order. See State v. Delvalle, 745 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The order requires that Mr. Ru-dolfs original sentence be replaced with a new sentence, but the new sentence has not yet been imposed. The order is essentially a nonfinal order entered after the entry of an appealable final orde…