Chubb v. State

951 So. 2d 901, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 1060, 32 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 339
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 31, 2007·No. No. 1D06-5567·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal pursuant to the “mailbox” rule on October 16, 2006, seeking review of an “Order Dismissing Petition for Habeas Corpus,” filed in the lower tribunal on June 8, 2006. However, because the appellant’s motion for clarification, which the trial court treated as a second motion for rehearing, was not an authorized motion, see Arleo v. Garcia, 695 So.2d 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), it did not delay rendition of the order of dismissal. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(h). Consequently, the notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days of rendition of the order on appeal. For this reason, we dis[902] miss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to the appellant’s right to seek relief in the trial court. See Brown v. State, 708 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

BARFIELD, VAN NORTWICK, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Chubb v. State, 951 So. 2d 901, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 1060, 32 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 339 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

951 So. 2d 901 (Chubb v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Arleo v. Garcia
695 So. 2d 862 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Brown v. State
708 So. 2d 1041 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)