Case ID: so3d_237/html/0483-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Homer WALKER, Appellant, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections and the Florida Commission on Offender Review, Appellees.
    No. 1D17-2199
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 28, 2018
    Homer Walker, pro se, Appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, and Gayla Grant, Assistant General Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee Florida Department of Corrections. No appearance for Appellee Florida Commission on Offender Review.
   Per Curiam.

Appellant seeks review of an order denying his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which was rendered March 6, 2017. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(i). The clerk of the lower tribunal stamped Appellant's notice of appeal as filed April 12, 2017. This date appeared to be the presumptive filing date of the appeal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.420(a)(2).

Because the presumptive filing date was beyond the 30-day period for seeking review, we directed Appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In response, Appellant demonstrates that the presumptive filing date of the notice of appeal is April 7, 2017, the date he placed it in the hands of an institution official for mailing. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.420(b)(2)(A). This presumptive filing date is also beyond the 30-day period for seeking review. However, in reliance on Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.070, Appellant concludes that the notice of appeal was timely filed.

Appellant's reliance on the rule is misplaced because it does not apply to the time period for filing a notice of appeal. See Joseph v. State , 157 So.3d 546, 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). Because no additional time is added to the 30-day period to bring an appeal, Appellant's notice of appeal filed outside this time period is untimely and failed to invoke the Court's jurisdiction.

DISMISSED .

Wetherell, Rowe, and Jay, JJ., concur.