RANDALL C. WHITNEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
RANDALL C. WHITNEY, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
936 So. 2d 715
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2006)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Having considered the appellant’s response to this Court’s order of July 5, 2006, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The notice of appeal filed on June 6, 2006, appealing the order denying the appellant’s motion to correct illegal sentence rendered on March 23, 2006, is untimely. Because the notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after rendition of the order and the untimely motion for rehearing did not delay rendition, this Court is without appellate jurisdiction. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(b). This appeal is hereby dismissed.
DISMISSED.
DAVIS, POLSTON, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Est. OF Norma J. Johnson v. Badger Acquisition OF Tampa LLC, 983 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…observe the use of "may” in reference to laboratory or clinical testing duties. Id. When interpreting a statute, "shall” is generally read as being mandatory while "may” suggests a permissive term. See Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Sidky, 936 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). . A physician prescribes a pharmaceutical based on his careful consideration and personal knowledge of the patient "balancing ... the risks and benefits of a given drug.” Walls v. Alpharma USPD, Inc., 887 So. 2d 881, 885 (Ala.2…
-
Sloban v. Fla. Bd. OF Pharmacy, 982 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…resült or one contrary to legislative intent, courts may look to the context in which “may” is used and the legislature’s intent to determine whether “may” should be read as a mandatory term. See Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Sidky, M.D., 936 So. 2d 715, 721 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Comcoa v. Coe, 587 So. 2d 474, 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Allied Fidelity Ins. Co. v. State, 415 So. 2d 109, 110-11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (rejecting the appellant’s argument that “shall” always means “shall”). Here, the context…
-
State v. Milbry, 219 So. 3d 160 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…e they occurred at the same time and involve the death of the same child.2 Therefore, given the mandatory language of the rule and absent an untimely motion, it appears consolidation was required.3 See Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Sidky, 936 So. 2d 715, 721 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“The word ‘may’ when given its ordinary meaning. denotes a permissive term rather than the mandatory connotation of the word ‘shall.’ ” (quoting The Fla. Bar v. Trazenfeld, 833 So. 2d 734, 738 (Fla. 2002))). • Inasmuch as…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence