Groo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Groo v. State

685 So. 2d 1033, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 112, 1997 WL 7169

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 10, 1997·No. No. 96-3332·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Adam Groo appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Ci'iminal Procedure 3.800(a). We dismiss the appeal because it was not timely filed and therefore, we lack jurisdiction. After the denial of his rule 3.800 motion, Mr. Groo did not file an appeal within thirty (30) days but instead filed a motion for rehearing. The filing of the motion for rehearing did not toll the time for filing his appeal. See Kosek v. State, 640 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA), cause dismissed, 648 So.2d 723 (Fla.1994).

DISMISSED.

GOSHORN, GRIFFIN and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Adam Groo appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Ci'iminal Procedure 3.800(a). We dismiss the appeal because it was not timely filed and therefore, we lack jurisdiction. After the denial of his rule 3.800 motion, Mr. Groo did not file an appeal within thirty (30) days but instead filed a motion for rehearing. The filing of the motion for rehearing did not toll the time for filing his appeal. See Kosek v. State, 640 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA), cause dismissed, 648 So.2d 723 (Fla.1994).

DISMISSED.

GOSHORN, GRIFFIN and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

Groo v. State, 685 So. 2d 1033, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 112, 1997 WL 7169 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

685 So. 2d 1033 (Groo v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related