Tarver v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tarver v. State

932 So. 2d 596, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 10798, 2006 WL 1788218

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 30, 2006

DocketNo. 5D06-1864

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 932 So. 2d 596 (Tarver 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

Tarver v. State, 932 So. 2d 596, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 10798, 2006 WL 1788218 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MONACO, J.

We deny the petition for habeas corpus filed by the petitioner, Jeremy D. Tarver, in which he seeks a belated appeal of the denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion by the trial court. First, we note that the petition is unsworn, and thus does not comply with the requirements of Rule 9.141(c)(3)(F), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. More importantly, Mr. Tarver indicates in his petition that the order denying the underlying Rule 3.800(a) motion was rendered on September 16, 2005. He relates further that he individually filed his notice of appeal for purposes of the mailbox rule “on or about November 15, 2005.” As this indicates that the filing of his notice of appeal was well beyond the thirty-day limit prescribed in Rule 9.140(b)(3), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, and that the fault in missing the filing deadline lies solely with Mr. Tarver, we deny the petition. See McIntosh v. State, 906 So.2d 1272 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Cotterell v. State, 890 So.2d 315 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

PETITION DENIED.

SAWAYA and PALMER, JJ., concur.

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

MONACO, J.

We deny the petition for habeas corpus filed by the petitioner, Jeremy D. Tarver, in which he seeks a belated appeal of the denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion by the trial court. First, we note that the petition is unsworn, and thus does not comply with the requirements of Rule 9.141(c)(3)(F), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. More importantly, Mr. Tarver indicates in his petition that the order denying the underlying Rule 3.800(a) motion was rendered on September 16, 2005. He relates further that he individually filed his notice of appeal for purposes of the mailbox rule “on or about November 15, 2005.” As this indicates that the filing of his notice of appeal was well beyond the thirty-day limit prescribed in Rule 9.140(b)(3), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, and that the fault in missing the filing deadline lies solely with Mr. Tarver, we deny the petition. See McIntosh v. State, 906 So.2d 1272 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Cotterell v. State, 890 So.2d 315 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

PETITION DENIED.

SAWAYA and PALMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

932 So. 2d 596, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 10798, 2006 WL 1788218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tarver-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack