JAMES E. SMITH, 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 notice of appeal was untimely filed more than 30 days after the trial court's order denying the motion for rehearing, and an unauthorized motion for reconsideration did not extend the filing deadline.
A notice of appeal filed more than 30 days after the trial court's denial of a timely motion for rehearing is untimely, and an unauthorized motion for reconsideration does not delay rendition of the underlying order.
[1] An unauthorized motion for reconsideration of a motion for rehearing does not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal under Florida Appellate Procedure Rule 9.140.
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 intelligenceSmith filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence on November 11, 2005, which the trial court denied on September 25, 2006. He filed a timely 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 Rendition Of Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Having considered appellant’s response to this Court’s order dated September 18, 2007, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
On November 11, 2005, appellant filed a motion to correct illegal sentence. The trial court denied the motion on September 25, 2006, and appellant filed a motion for rehearing on October 6, 2006. The trial court denied appellant’s motion for rehearing on April 4, 2007. On June 7, 2007, appellant filed a “Motion for Reconsideration of Defendants Motion for Rehearing.” The trial court denied the motion on June 7, 2007, and, on July 3, 2007, the appellant filed a notice of appeal. The notice of appeal is untimely. Appellant’s “Motion For Reconsideration Of Defendant’s Motion For Rehearing,” is an unauthorized motion for rehearing and does not delay rendition of the trial court’s order of September 27, 2006. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(h); Morris v. State, 630 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). As such, appellant’s notice of appeal should have been filed within thirty days of the trial court’s denial of appellant’s timely motion for rehearing, filed on October 6, 2006. Fla. R.App. P. 9.140. Because the notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after rendition of the order and the unauthorized motion for reconsideration did not delay rendition, this Court is without appellate jurisdiction. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(b). Any remedy for the trial court’s failure to inform appellant of his appellate rights with regard to the denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion should be sought by way of petition for belated appeal.
DISMISSED.
ALLEN, VAN NORTWICK, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. State, 985 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. See Smith v. State, 967 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (motion for [*607] reconsideration of order denying motion for rehearing is unauthorized and does not delay rendition of the underlying final order). BROWNING, C.J., KAHN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Dumas v. State, 630 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Morris v. State, 630 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)