ERIC D. COLEMAN, 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 held that the notice of appeal was timely as to one order but untimely as to another, requiring dismissal of part of the appeal.
Appellant filed two motions to correct an illegal sentence. The trial court denied both. Appellant filed a motion for rehearing on one denial but not …
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) Motion To Correct Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Eric D. Coleman appeals the orders denying his motions to correct illegal sentence filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Coleman filed motions to correct illegal sentence on June 27, 2014, and March 14, 2016. The postconviction court rendered separate orders denying Coleman’s motions on June 7, 2016. Coleman filed a motion for rehearing, which only challenged the denial of his motion filed in March 2016, on June 16, 2016. The rehearing motion did not challenge the order denying his motion filed in June 2014. The postconviction court ren*782dered an order denying the motion for rehearing on June 23, 2016. Coleman filed a notice of appeal on July 11, 2016. The notice of appeal did not specify which June 7, 2016, order Coleman sought to appeal.
Coleman’s notice of appeal was timely with respect to the order denying his March 2016 motion because rendition of that oi'der was tolled by Coleman’s motion for rehearing. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(1)(B) (providing for motions for rehearing on orders entered on motions filed under rule 3.800(a)); Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(f) (providing that timely and authorized motions for rehearing toll rendition of final orders). We affirm that order without further comment.
However, because Coleman did not move for rehearing of the order denying his June 2014 motion, rendition was not tolled. Accordingly, his notice of appeal was untimely as to that order. We dismiss this appeal insofar as Coleman is seeking review of the order denying his June 2014 motion.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.
SALARIO and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.