Chubb v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chubb v. State

951 So. 2d 901, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 1060, 32 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 339

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 31, 2007

DocketNo. 1D06-5567

StatusPublished

This text of 951 So. 2d 901 (Chubb v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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]*902miss 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

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]*902miss 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

951 So. 2d 901, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 1060, 32 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chubb-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack