Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

610 So. 2d 455

Docket No. 92-2219.

Newman v. State

Phillip NEWMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 30, 1992.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1992-09-30

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 1998

6 state decisions

Relies on Griffis v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1992-09-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Phillip Newman, pro se appellant.

¶2No appearance required for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Appellant filed a motion seeking gain-time, along with a petition in support of his motion. When his motion was denied he moved for rehearing of his motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We can assume from the motion for rehearing that the original motion was also filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a). We agree with the First District Court of Appeal's conclusion in Griffis v. State,593 So.2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), that a motion for rehearing does not postpone rendition of an order disposing of a rule 3.800(a) motion. Id. at 308.

¶5In order for the notice of appeal in this case to have been timely as to the May 18, 1992, order of denial, it had to have been filed by June 17, 1992. The notice filed July 17, 1992 was therefore untimely, and as a result this court lacks jurisdiction of the cause. We sua sponte dismiss the appeal on the authority of Griffis v. State.

¶6GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and DOWNEY and POLEN, JJ., concur.

/610/so2d/455 · .json · Public domain