Ward v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ward v. State

836 So. 2d 1129, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1412, 2003 WL 291437

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 12, 2003

DocketNo. 1D02-4211

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 836 So. 2d 1129 (Ward 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

Ward v. State, 836 So. 2d 1129, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1412, 2003 WL 291437 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Having considered the appellant’s response to this Court’s order, dated December 31, 2002, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The notice of appeal filed on October 9, 2002, appealing the Final Judgment and Order of Commitment, entered on July 23, 2002, is untimely. The jury verdict was dated July 18, 2002. Therefore the Motion for New Trial which was served on August 1, 2002, was untimely because it was served more than ten days after the jury verdict was entered. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530(b). Accordingly, the Motion for New Trial did not delay the rendition of the Final Judgment and Order of Commitment. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(h). Because the notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after rendition of the order, this Court is without appellate jurisdiction. See Fla. R.App.9.110(b).

DISMISSED.

WEBSTER, DAVIS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Having considered the appellant’s response to this Court’s order, dated December 31, 2002, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The notice of appeal filed on October 9, 2002, appealing the Final Judgment and Order of Commitment, entered on July 23, 2002, is untimely. The jury verdict was dated July 18, 2002. Therefore the Motion for New Trial which was served on August 1, 2002, was untimely because it was served more than ten days after the jury verdict was entered. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530(b). Accordingly, the Motion for New Trial did not delay the rendition of the Final Judgment and Order of Commitment. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(h). Because the notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after rendition of the order, this Court is without appellate jurisdiction. See Fla. R.App.9.110(b).

DISMISSED.

WEBSTER, DAVIS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

836 So. 2d 1129, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1412, 2003 WL 291437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack