LARRY JAMISON

v.

CHAUNTRELL KNOX

Fla. 5th DCA | 2024-08-09

No. 2024-0934

Lambert, J., Wallis, J., Soud, J., Roberson, J.

2024 FL 9598 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2024)

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.

Holding

An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review an order when the notice of appeal is filed more than thirty days after the order's rendition, and an unauthorized motion for rehearing does not toll the time to appeal.

Headnotes

[1] An unauthorized motion for rehearing or reconsideration does not toll the thirty-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.13…

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 intelligence

Key Quotes

“The failure to file a timely notice of appeal deprives [an appellate] [c]ourt of jurisdiction.”
Court citing Williams v. State, 386 So. 3d 200, 201 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) to establish the jurisdictional requirement.

Facts & Procedural History

Jamison sought to vacate a 2018 injunction for protection against dating violence entered in favor of Knox. The trial court denied his motion to vacat…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Injunction For Protection Against Dating Violence Motion To Vacate Final Judgment Appellate Jurisdiction

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Injunction For Protection Against Dating Violence cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Soud

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D2024-0934 LT Case No. 2018-DR-147-DVAX _____________________________ LARRY JAMISON, Appellant, v. CHAUNTRELL KNOX, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Eric C. Roberson, Judge. Larry L. Jamison, Lake Butler, pro se. Chauntrell Knox, Jacksonville, pro se. August 9, 2024

LAMBERT, J.

Larry Lee Jamison appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to vacate the final judgment of injunction for protection against dating violence that had been entered against him in June 2018 in favor of Appellee, Chauntrell Knox. Jamison argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion without affording him an evidentiary hearing to show that the current circumstances are now such that the need for the injunction no longer exists. While

APPEAL DISMISSED.

WALLIS and SOUD, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ 3 Although Appellee did not raise the issue of our jurisdiction, an appellate court is required to assess its own jurisdiction. Nacius v. One W. Bank, FSB, 211 So. 3d 152, 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (recognizing that an appellate court is required to assess its own jurisdiction even when not raised by the parties) (citations omitted).

Footnotes

2 Jamison’s argument appears to have merit,1 we are compelled to dismiss this appeal because Jamison has failed to timely invoke our jurisdiction. Review of the order now before us is permitted under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(5). Significant here, for this court to properly exercise its jurisdiction, Jamison’s notice of appeal must have been filed within thirty days of the rendition of the subject order. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(b). The trial court’s order denying Jamison’s motion to vacate the final judgment of injunction was rendered on February 23, 2024. Jamison then filed a motion for rehearing/reconsideration of this order. However, under rule 9.130(a)(5), this motion for rehearing was unauthorized; and, secondly, its filing did not toll the time for Jamison to file his notice of appeal. After the lower court denied his motion for rehearing, Jamison filed his notice of appeal on March 27, 2024, which was more than thirty days after the February 23, 2024 denial order was rendered. Resultingly, his notice of appeal was untimely; and, accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal.2 See Williams v. State, 386 So. 3d 200, 201 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) (“The failure to file a timely notice of appeal deprives [an appellate] [c]ourt of 1 See Brown v. Armstrong, 348 So. 3d 670, 670 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022); Brown v. Garcia, 322 So. 3d 782, 782 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021); Champion v. Zuilkowski, 182 So. 3d 689, 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Raymonvil v. Lewis, 46 So. 3d 139, 139–40 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Reed v. Reed, 816 So. 2d 1246, 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). To be clear, we take no position on the merits of Jamison’s motion to vacate the final judgment of injunction for protection. 2 Jamison’s notice also indicated that he was appealing the trial court’s order denying his motion for rehearing. This order is not independently reviewable. See Ricardo v. Wells Fargo Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 166 So. 3d 967, 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).

3 jurisdiction.” (citing Joseph v. State, 157 So. 3d 546, 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015))).3

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Reed v. Reed, 816 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
Lavallee v. Lavallee, 157 So. 3d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
Collier Cnty. v. Curry, 166 So. 3d 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
Melina M. Nacius and Aurilien Nacius v. ONE W. Bank, FSB, 211 So. 3d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
Tishon Brown v. Ny-Hunta Armstrong, 322 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)
Williams v. State, 46 So. 3d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
Champion v. Zuilkowski, 182 So. 3d 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw

LARRY JAMISON v. CHAUNTRELL KNOX