TERRENCE KING, 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 is not authorized by rule 3.800 and therefore does not toll the time for filing an appeal. The court lacks jurisdiction over the untimely appeal.
Appellant sought additional credit for time served. The state conceded some credit was due, but the trial court denied the motion. Appellant's motion …
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 Tolling Of Appeal Time cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Terrence King appeals the denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), in which he had sought additional credit for time served. In its response below, the state agreed that King was entitled to some of the credit he sought in his motion, conceding that the time King had served in prison on a split sentence before his probation was revoked should have been applied to the new prison sentence imposed in that case. However, the state disputed the remainder of the motion.
Despite this partial concession of error, the trial court denied the motion “for the reasons contained in the State’s Response, copy of which is attached hereto.” King moved for rehearing, alleging that the trial court had overlooked that part of the state’s response that agreed to partial relief. The motion for rehearing was denied. King filed a notice of appeal within 30 days of the denial of his motion for rehearing, but more than 30 days after rendition of the original order denying his 3.800 motion.
Because motions for rehearing are not authorized by rule 3.800, King’s motion did not toll the time for bringing this appeal. This court therefore lacks jurisdiction over his untimely appeal. See Wright v. State, 643 So. 2d 1157, 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Although we must dismiss this appeal, the unique facts of this case require that we do so without prejudice to King to file a new motion alleging the state’s agreement and attaching its response to his earlier motion. If the trial court disagrees with the state’s concession, it should make that finding clear in its order. WARNER, C.J., POLEN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scipio G. Ridley v. State, 890 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…fails to recognize that such jurisdiction only extends sixty days following sentencing. The State’s unauthorized motion for rehearing did not have the effect of extending the trial court’s jurisdiction beyond the sixty day limit. See King v. State, 754 So. 2d 85, 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (recognizing that motions for rehearing are not authorized by Rule 3.800). As a result, we conclude that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the restitution order eighty-two days following sentencing. Accordingly, th…
-
Rogers v. State, 916 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…ur. FARMER, J., concurs in result only. . Defendant moved for rehearing, but until rule 3.800(a) was amended effective January 1, 2005, a motion for rehearing did not defer rendition of an order denying a rule 3.800(a) motion. E.g., King v. State, 754 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Thus, an appeal from this order had to be filed by Monday, October 27, 2003. The notice of appeal in this case was not filed until November 6, 2003, apparently having been mailed on November 3. (The certificate of service accomp…
-
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 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wright v. State, 643 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)