From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Groo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Jan 10, 1997
685 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

Opinion

Case No. 96-3332

Opinion filed January 10, 1997

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Dorothy J. Russell, Judge.

Adam C. Groo, Moore Haven, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.


Adam Groo appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We dismiss the appeal because it was not timely filed and therefore, we lack jurisdiction. After the denial of his rule 3.800 motion, Mr. Groo did not file an appeal within thirty (30) days but instead filed a motion for rehearing. The filing of the motion for rehearing did not toll the time for filing his appeal. See Kosek v. State, 640 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA), cause dismissed, 648 So.2d 723 (Fla. 1994).

DISMISSED.

GOSHORN, GRIFFIN and ANTOON, J.J., concur.


Summaries of

Groo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Jan 10, 1997
685 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
Case details for

Groo v. State

Case Details

Full title:ADAM C. GROO, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Jan 10, 1997

Citations

685 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)