Mendoza v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mendoza v. State

183 So. 3d 404, 2014 WL 3643557, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 11196

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 23, 2014

DocketNo. 3D13-1366

StatusPublished

This text of 183 So. 3d 404 (Mendoza 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

Mendoza v. State, 183 So. 3d 404, 2014 WL 3643557, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 11196 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Salvador Mendoza appeals an order barring him from filing further post-conviction motions in the lower tribunal case unless any such motion is signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. The notice of appeal filed by Mendoza indicates that he is also attempting to appeal an order (entered over two months before the bar order) denying his motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Any such attempt was untimely and would have been subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Treating Mendoza’s notice of appeal and amended brief as a petition for belated appeal, however, we have considered the merits of his arguments under Rule 3.800. Finding no merit, we affirm both of the orders sought to be reviewed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Salvador Mendoza appeals an order barring him from filing further post-conviction motions in the lower tribunal case unless any such motion is signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. The notice of appeal filed by Mendoza indicates that he is also attempting to appeal an order (entered over two months before the bar order) denying his motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Any such attempt was untimely and would have been subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Treating Mendoza’s notice of appeal and amended brief as a petition for belated appeal, however, we have considered the merits of his arguments under Rule 3.800. Finding no merit, we affirm both of the orders sought to be reviewed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 So. 3d 404, 2014 WL 3643557, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 11196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mendoza-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.