Rodriguez v. Florida Parole Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rodriguez v. Florida Parole Commission

973 So. 2d 1153, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 17227, 2006 WL 2956207

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 18, 2006

DocketNo. 1D06-3262

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 973 So. 2d 1153 (Rodriguez v. Florida Parole Commission) 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

Rodriguez v. Florida Parole Commission, 973 So. 2d 1153, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 17227, 2006 WL 2956207 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that the notice of appeal herein was not timely filed and, therefore, dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The post-judgment motion filed by counsel was not timely, and therefore did not suspend rendition of the circuit court’s final order. See Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. of Conn. v. Sealey, 810 So.2d 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Because appellant was represented by counsel, the pro se “Motion for Relief from Judgment” was a legal nullity. See Marsh v. State, 919 So.2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Booker v. State, 807 So.2d 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). As such, the pro se motion likewise did not postpone rendition of the trial court’s final order.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

KAHN, and LEWIS, JJ., concur. BENTON, J., DISSENTS WITH OPINION.

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

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that the notice of appeal herein was not timely filed and, therefore, dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The post-judgment motion filed by counsel was not timely, and therefore did not suspend rendition of the circuit court’s final order. See Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. of Conn. v. Sealey, 810 So.2d 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Because appellant was represented by counsel, the pro se “Motion for Relief from Judgment” was a legal nullity. See Marsh v. State, 919 So.2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Booker v. State, 807 So.2d 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). As such, the pro se motion likewise did not postpone rendition of the trial court’s final order.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

KAHN, and LEWIS, JJ., concur. BENTON, J., DISSENTS WITH OPINION.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

973 So. 2d 1153, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 17227, 2006 WL 2956207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-florida-parole-commission-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack