Steele v. Crosby

919 So. 2d 566, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 91, 2006 WL 42241
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 10, 2006·No. No. 1D05-2867·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellant’s response to the Court’s order of November 16, 2005, the Court has determined that the notice of appeal was not timely filed. See Frantz v. Moore, 772 So.2d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(h). Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

ERVIN, BENTON and LEWIS, JJ„ concur.

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

Steele v. Crosby, 919 So. 2d 566, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 91, 2006 WL 42241 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

919 So. 2d 566 (Steele v. Crosby) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Medina v. State
919 So. 2d 566 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)