Jenkins v. Goodman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jenkins v. Goodman

244 So. 3d 1198

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 25, 2018

DocketCase No. 2D17–877

StatusPublished

This text of 244 So. 3d 1198 (Jenkins v. Goodman) 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

Jenkins v. Goodman, 244 So. 3d 1198 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

SILBERMAN, Judge.

*1199After a final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence was entered against him, Shermykael Juanius Jenkins filed a pro se "Motion for Rehearing or Appeal" which the trial court treated as Jenkins' notice of appeal. In his motion for rehearing or appeal and in this court, Jenkins alleged grounds that do not establish reversible error but may provide for relief from judgment under Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.540(b). Rather than relinquish jurisdiction for the trial court to consider those grounds, we affirm without prejudice to Jenkins filing a motion for relief from judgment under rule 12.540(b) within thirty days of mandate. See Armbruster v. Amber Int'l Corp., 416 So.2d 1220, 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) ; Glatstein v. City of Miami, 391 So.2d 297, 299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

CASANUEVA and SLEET, JJ., Concur.

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

SILBERMAN, Judge.

*1199After a final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence was entered against him, Shermykael Juanius Jenkins filed a pro se "Motion for Rehearing or Appeal" which the trial court treated as Jenkins' notice of appeal. In his motion for rehearing or appeal and in this court, Jenkins alleged grounds that do not establish reversible error but may provide for relief from judgment under Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.540(b). Rather than relinquish jurisdiction for the trial court to consider those grounds, we affirm without prejudice to Jenkins filing a motion for relief from judgment under rule 12.540(b) within thirty days of mandate. See Armbruster v. Amber Int'l Corp., 416 So.2d 1220, 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) ; Glatstein v. City of Miami, 391 So.2d 297, 299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

CASANUEVA and SLEET, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 So. 3d 1198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkins-v-goodman-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack