SHANE JOHNSON, 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.
Shane Johnson appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal as untimely. Johnson filed his notice of appeal more than 30 days after the trial court's dismissal order, and his motion for rehearing was not timely filed, so it did not suspend the deadline for appeal.
The appeal is dismissed as untimely because Johnson's notice of appeal was filed on March 20, 2007, more than 30 days after the dismissal order was filed on January 12, 2007, and his February 8 motion for rehearing was not timely and therefore did not suspend rendition of the judgment.
[1] A notice of appeal in a civil case must be filed within thirty days of the date of rendition of the order appealed.
[2] An order is rendered on the date it is filed with the clerk's office, unless an authorized and timely motion for rehearing is filed.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A notice of appeal in a civil case must be filed with the clerk of the lower court within thirty days of the date of rendition of the order appealed.”
Establishes the basic jurisdictional requirement for timely appeals in civil cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court dismissed Johnson's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on January 12, 2007. Johnson filed a motion for rehearing on February 8, 2007, …
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
STEVENSON, J.
Shane Johnson has filed a notice of appeal directed to the trial court’s dismissal of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. We dismiss the appeal as the notice was filed more than thirty days after the trial court filed the final order with the clerk and Johnson’s untimely motion for rehearing did not suspend rendition of that final order. Habeas corpus is a civil remedy and, as such, governed by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.630 (rule governing extraordinary remedies, including writs of habeas corpus); Brigham v. State, 769 So. 2d 1100, 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (recognizing writ of habeas corpus is a civil remedy).
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(b) provides that a notice of appeal in a civil case must be filed with the clerk of the lower court within thirty days of the date of rendition of the order appealed. An order is rendered on the date that it is filed with the clerk’s office absent “an authorized and timely motion ... for rehearing-” See Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(h).
A timely and authorized motion will serve to suspend rendition of the judgment or order until disposition of the motion. See, e.g., Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. of Conn. v. Sealey, 810 So. 2d 988, 990-91 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (filing of motion listed in rule 9.020 suspends rendition only if motion is timely).
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.580(b) provides that a motion for rehearing “shall be served not later than 10 days after ... the date of filing of the judgment in a non-jury action.” And, finally, under the “mailbox rule,” a prisoner’s pleading is deemed filed the date that it is placed in the hands of prison officials. See, e.g., Earls v. State, 958 So. 2d 1153, 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).
Application of the foregoing rules to the instant case results in the conclusion that the instant notice of appeal (filed on March 20, 2007) was untimely as Johnson’s motion for rehearing (filed on February 8, 2007) was not timely and did not serve to toll rendition of the order dismissing his petition for habeas corpus (filed on January 12, 2007).
Dismissed.
STONE and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 198 So. 3d 995 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…r pleading was actually placed in the hands of prison or jail officials on a particular date, we leave it to the State to create and implement the mechanism for doing so. Thompson v. State, 761 So. 2d 324, 326 (FIa.2000); see also Johnson v. State, 969 So. 2d 402, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“[Hinder the ‘mailbox rule,’ a prisoner’s pleading is deemed filed the date that it is placed in the hands of prison officials.”); Earls v. State, 958 So. 2d 1153, 1153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (same). Accordingly, Davis’s resp…
-
Haspel v. State, 247 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…spel has now done so. In reply to the State’s response, Haspel filed a copy of his supplemental motion which bears a stamp from the prison mail system of May 19, 2016, and his supplemental motion is considered filed on that date. Johnson v. State, 969 So. 2d 402, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“[U]nder the ‘mailbox rule,’ a prisoner’s pleading is deemed filed the date that it is placed in the hands of prison officials.”); see also Earls v. State, 958 So. 2d 1153, 1153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Of course, the filing o…
Authorities Cited
- Thiel C. Frierson v. State, 810 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Brigham v. State, 769 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Earls v. State, 958 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)