TORIANO GRANT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
TORIANO GRANT, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
102 So. 3d 668
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2012)
Caution
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
Dismissed. See Bridges v. State, 863 So.2d 366, 366 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“[T]here is no authority under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(/) or Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure *6699.020(h), for filing a motion for rehearing of an order denying a motion to withdraw pleas.”).
BENTON, C.J., THOMAS, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Debrah Gadol v. Masoret Yehudit, 132 So. 3d 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…ange of physician, without regard to medical necessity. See Sunbelt Health Care v. Galva, 7 So. 3d 556, 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). A PFB can constitute the “written request of the employee.” See HMSHOST Corp./Gallagher Bassett Servs. Inc. v. Frederic, 102 So. 3d 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). An E/C timely responds by informing the claimant of the new doctor’s name; a timely response does not require the E/C to actually contact or schedule an appointment with the new doctor. See id. The five-day response period in th…
-
Agustin Bustamante v. Amber Constr. Co. & Am. Interstate Ins. Co., 118 So. 3d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…g an appointment. “Based on the plain reading of the statute, an E/C is required, however, to authorize at least one specific physician within five days of a claimant’s request.” Id. at 678. Additional support is found in HMSHost Corp. v. Frederic, 102 So. 3d 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). This court reversed the JCC’s finding that the E/C had not timely authorized a change in physician. Id. “The E/C’s informing Claimant of a particular doctor’s name within five days of receiving the request satisfied section 440.…
-
Archie v. State, 176 So. 3d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…s no authority under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(Z) or Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h) [9.020(i), as amended], for filing a motion for rehearing of an order [*368] denying a motion to withdraw plea[]."); see Grant v. State, 102 So. 3d 668, 668-69 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Only after the trial court denied Mr. Archie’s motion for rehearing did he file a notice of appeal challenging the denial of his motion for rehearing, a non-appealable order. In addition, the notice of appeal was filed o…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nellums v. State, 863 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)