I N THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT N OT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

L IDESMOND BAKER , A ppellant ,
v. Cas e No

. 5D 22

- 1963 LT Cas e No. 2020-10883- CIDL

V OLUSIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE , A ppellee

. ________________________________/

O pinion filed March 3, 2023 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County , Kathryn D. Weston , Judge. Lidesmond Baker, Trenton, pro se. Peter Mc G lashan, of County of Volusia Legal Dep artment , Deland, for Appellee.

P ER CURIAM. L idesmond Baker appeals the final summary judgment entered against him and in favor o f Appellee, Volusia County Sheriff’s Office , on Appellee’s complaint for forfeitu re . The trial court’s final judgment was rendered on July2 1, 2022 , when th e signed, written judgment was filed with the cler k of t he circuit court

. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(h) (defining “[r] endition of an [o] rder”). Baker , a pro se inmate, filed his notice of appeal on August 9, 2022, as reflected by the stamp of the Lancaster Co rrectional Institution on the notice bearing that date and initialed by Baker. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.420(a)(2)(A). To invoke the jurisdiction of this court to review the final judgment in this case, Baker’s notice of appeal must have been filed with the clerk of the circuit court within thirty days of rendition of the final judgment

. S ee Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b). As the notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days , we are precluded from exercising jurisdiction ; and the appeal must be dismissed. See Pennywell v. Dep’t of Rev. ex rel. Woodard , 62 So. 3d 19, 20 ( F la. 1 st DCA 2011) (“The filing deadline is jurisdictional, and the unti mel y filing of a notice of appeal precludes the [ a ppellate] c ourt from exercising jurisdiction over the appeal.” (citing Peltz v . Dist. C t. of Appeal, Third Dist. , 605 So. 2d 865, 866 (Fla. 1992) ; Mekertin v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. , 869 So. 2d 1286, 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) )). APPEAL DISMISSED MAKAR and JAY , JJ., concur. LAMBERT, C.J. , concurs specially , with opinion.3 LAMBERT, C.J., concurring specially. Case No. 22

- 1963 LT Case No. 2020

- 10883

- CIDL I c oncur with the majority opinion. We are required to dismiss this otherwise meritless appeal of a pro perly entered final summary judgment because our jurisdiction was not timely invoked. I write briefly to disc ourage the practice used by the trial court in thi s case where the court , in the certificate of service of its July 1 , 2022 final judgment, directed that copies of the judgment be sent to parties of record by eService and that the Volusia County Sheriff’s Office also “serve” Baker with a copy of the judgm ent “and file proof thereof.” I have no quarrel with serving a copy of the judgment by eService. However, t here is no indication in our brief record that Baker, who is presently incarcerated in the Department of Corrections, ha d an eService address, nor is it likely that he does. Thus, Baker had to rely on opposing counsel to obtain a copy of the final judgment. Our record shows that counsel filed a certificate , dated July 6, 2022 , representing that he mailed a
copy of the July 1, 2022 judg ment to Baker at the Lancaster W ork C amp address in Trenton, Florida , which is Baker’s address as indicated in hi s pro se notice of appeal. I do not question that counsel did as directed. Moreover , w hen Baker may have actually received his copy of the final judgment is not dispositive4 because, as the majority correctly holds, the time to file a n otice of appeal runs from the date that the order is rendere d, not the date that the order is received by the inmate appellant

. See Ashley v. Stat e , 845 So. 2d 1008, 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)

. Whether the procedure used by the trial court provides Baker with some later avenue to move to set aside the current judgment and pursue an appeal of an order entered on that motion is not before us. Nevertheless, as the procedure used here brings into play matters that are wholly avoidable, I urge t rial courts not to place a duty on counsel to serve an opposing pro se inmate party with copies of orders or judgments.