DONNELL QUARTERMAN, 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 dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the appellant failed to timely file his notice of appeal within 30 days of the order denying his motion for extension of time, as a motion for reconsideration under Rule 3.050 does not postpone rendition.
A motion for reconsideration of an order denying a motion for extension of time under Rule 3.050 does not operate to postpone rendition and therefore does not extend the time to file a notice of appeal.
[1] A motion for reconsideration of an order denying a motion for extension of time under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.050 does not operate to postpone rendition unde…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceQuarterman filed a motion in circuit court seeking an extension of time to file a motion under Rule 3.850, and subsequently filed a motion for reconsi…
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 Motion For Extension Of Time cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of appellant’s response to our order to show cause concerning the timeliness of the notice of appeal, we conclude that our jurisdiction was not timely invoked, and therefore dismiss the appeal. Although Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(g) does authorize a motion for rehearing of “any order denying a motion under this rule,” the motion Quarterman filed in the circuit court did not seek relief under rule 3.850, but rather sought only an extension of time to file a motion under that rule. Motions for extensions of time for performing acts required or allowed to be done under the rules of criminal procedure are governed by rule 3.050, which does not authorize motions for rehearing of orders denying relief sought under that rule. Because Quarterman’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion for extension of time was not authorized under rule 3.050, it did not operate to postpone rendition under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h). Accordingly, because appellant did not file his notice of appeal within 30 days of rendition of the order denying his motion for extension of time, we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
KAHN, VAN NORTWICK and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 985 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. See Quarterman v. State, 876 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). WOLF, THOMAS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.…
-
O'Bryant v. State, 967 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. Quarterman v. State, 876 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). BROWNING, C.J., BARFIELD and BENTON, JJ., CONCUR.…
-
Pettway v. State, 984 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…tion for leave to file a belated rule 3.850 motion is a final order or otherwise appealable nonfínal order. Rehearing from an order denying a motion seeking an extension of time to file a rule 3.850 motion is not authorized. See Quarterman v. State, 876 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1st DCA [*592] 2004). Therefore, it follows that a motion for an extension of time to file an unauthorized motion is also unauthorized under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(4). For this reason, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. WE…