Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Groo v. State

Groo v. State

685 So. 2d 1033, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 112, 1997 WL 7169
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 10, 1997
DocketNo. 96-3332
StatusPublished

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

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

Related

Kosek v. State
640 So. 2d 1127 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
685 So. 2d 1033, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 112, 1997 WL 7169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/groo-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.