ALEXANDER THOMAS
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
An order denying a motion for extension of time to comply with appeal deadlines is nonfinal and nonappealable.
[1] An order denying a motion for extension of time to comply with appeal deadlines is nonfinal and nonappealable.
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 intelligenceAlexander Thomas appealed an order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County that denied his motion for extension of time. Thomas sought additional…
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 Non-Appealable Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed November 10, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D21-1670 Lower Tribunal Nos. F11-1766, F11-1764, F11-1765, F11-1308, F11-1767 ________________
Alexander Thomas,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Michelle Delancy, Judge. Alexander Thomas, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before LINDSEY, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Alexander Thomas, challenges an order denying his motion for extension of time. In the motion, Thomas ostensibly seeks additional time to comply with the deadlines applicable to a separate appeal pending in this court. Concluding the order is nonfinal and nonappealable, we dismiss this appeal without prejudice to the filing of further motions in the other pending appeal. See Manning v. State, 28 So. 3d 971, 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (dismissing an appeal from an order denying a motion for extension of time to file a postconviction motion).
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lucas v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…original understanding that exceptions to the Fourth Amendment must be narrowly, carefully, and protectively drawn. OSTERHAUS, J., concurring. I join my colleagues in voting to affirm in accordance with this Court’s decision in Thomas v. State, 312 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021), which involved the same underlying suppression issue. Under §§ 320.13, Florida Statutes, dealer license plates cannot be lawfully attached to a motor vehicle unless it is “in inventory and for sale, or while being operated in co…
-
Nathanael J. Stevens and Personal Representative of B.R. v. Stevens (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…n under Ridgway. This appeal followed. ANALYSIS A trial court’s findings of fact are affirmed on appeal if they are supported by competent, substantial evidence, while its application of the law to the facts is reviewed de novo. Thomas v. State, 312 So. 3d 156, 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021). The issue of federal preemption is subject to de novo review. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Marotta, 214 So. 3d 590, 595 (Fla. 2017). The SGLIA was enacted by Congress in 1965, and it provides in relevant part that any ins…
Authorities Cited
- Manning v. State, 28 So. 3d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)