From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Newman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Sep 30, 1992
610 So. 2d 455 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Opinion

No. 92-2219.

September 30, 1992.

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for Broward County; Robert B. Carney, Judge.

Phillip Newman, pro se appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.


Appellant filed a motion seeking gain-time, along with a petition in support of his motion. When his motion was denied he moved for rehearing of his motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We can assume from the motion for rehearing that the original motion was also filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a). We agree with the First District Court of Appeal's conclusion in Griffis v. State, 593 So.2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), that a motion for rehearing does not postpone rendition of an order disposing of a rule 3.800(a) motion. Id. at 308.

In order for the notice of appeal in this case to have been timely as to the May 18, 1992, order of denial, it had to have been filed by June 17, 1992. The notice filed July 17, 1992 was therefore untimely, and as a result this court lacks jurisdiction of the cause. We sua sponte dismiss the appeal on the authority of Griffis v. State.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and DOWNEY and POLEN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Newman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Sep 30, 1992
610 So. 2d 455 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
Case details for

Newman v. State

Case Details

Full title:PHILLIP NEWMAN, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Sep 30, 1992

Citations

610 So. 2d 455 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Citing Cases

Wright v. State

Thus, a motion for rehearing fails to toll the time for appealing from an adverse judgment in a rule 3.800…

Mathis v. State

We are unable to address the merits of these issues because Mathis filed a motion for rehearing of the trial…