Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

89 So. 3d 304

Ray v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2012-06-13

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 2019

3 state decisions

Relies on 591 So. 2d 614 - State v. McClain · Raysor v. Raysor · 589 So. 2d 961 - Coca Cola Foods v. Cordero

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2012-06-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The petition for belated appeal is denied on the merits. In order to be timely, a pleading invoking the court’s jurisdiction must be filed within the required time and merely mailing the notice within the required time period is not sufficient. Raysor v. Raysor, 706 So.2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Coca Cola Foods v. Cordero, 589 So.2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Petitioner is not entitled to rely on the “mailbox rule” because there is no showing that petitioner was an inmate at the time the notice of appeal was served. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.420(a)(2) (providing that a “document filed by a pro se inmate confined in an institution is timely filed if the inmate places the document in the hands of an institution official for mailing on or before the last day for filing”); Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614 (Fla.1992).

¶2PETITION DENIED.

VAN NORTWICK, THOMAS, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
/89/so3d/304 · .json · Public domain