MARYLYNN FALCO, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• LEE v. State, 56 So. 3d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
  …ocedure. We dismiss the appeal. Notwithstanding the language in the trial court’s order of dismissal, the denial of a Rule 3.800(c) motion to mitigate is not an appealable order. See Mann v. State, 26 So. 3d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Falco v. State, 44 So. 3d 198, 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“Despite the language in the order of dismissal informing appellant that she [*114] had thirty days to appeal, there is no right to appeal from the denial of a rule 3.800(c) motion.”). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for…
• Mosquera v. State, 48 So. 3d 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
  …PER CURIAM. Dismissed. See Falco v. State, 44 So. 3d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). HAZOURI, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.…
• Edwards v. State, 53 So. 3d 1131 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
  …ded the statement that “[t]he Defendant shall have thirty (30) days from the date this Order is filed to take an appeal by filing a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of Court” does not transform the order into an ap-pealable order. See Falco v. State, 44 So. 3d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). This boilerplate language is required in orders on other types of postconviction motions, but it should not be included in orders on rule 3.800(c) motions. See Howard v. State, 914 So. 2d 455, 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); see also B…

Authorities Cited

• Lowery v. State, 914 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
• Young v. McNEIL, 23 So. 3d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
• Reeves v. State, 23 So. 3d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)