## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ C ase No. 5D2 024

- 0934 LT Case No. 2018

- DR

- 147

- DVAX

_____________________________ L ARRY J AMISON , A ppellant,

v. C HAUNTRELL K NOX , A ppellee.

_____________________________

On a ppeal f

rom th e Circuit Court for Duval County

. E ric C

. Roberson , J udge

. L arry L. Jamison, Lake Butler, pro se

. C hauntrell Knox, Jacksonville, pro se

. A ugust 9, 2024

L AMBERT , J.
L arry Lee Jamison appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to vacate the final judgment of injunction for protection against dating violence that had been entered against him in June 2018 in favor o f Appellee, Chauntrell Knox

. Jamison argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion without affording him an evidentiary hearing to show that the current circumstances are now such that the need for the injunctio n no longer exists

. While2 Jamison’s argument appears to have merit, 1 we are compelled to dismiss this appeal because Jamison has failed to timely invoke our jurisdiction.
R ev iew of th e order now before us is permitted under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(5). Significant here, for this court to properly exercise its jurisdiction, Jamison’s notice of appeal must have be en filed within thirty days of th e rendition of th e subject order

. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(b).
T he trial court’s order denying Jamison’s motion to vacate the final judgment of injunction was rend e red on February 23, 2024. Jamison then filed a motion for rehearing/reconsideration of this order

. However, u nder rule 9.1 3 0(a)(5) , this motion for rehearing was unauthorized ; and, secondly, its filing did not toll the time for Jamison to file his notice of appeal.
A fter t he lower court denied his motion for rehearing , Jamison f

iled his notice of appeal on March 27, 2024 , which wa s more than thirty days after the February 23, 2024 denial order was rendered

. Resultingly, his notice of appeal was untimely ; and, accordingly , we lack jurisdiction to consider thi s appeal. 2 See Williams v. State , 386 So. 3d 200, 201 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2023) (“The failure to file a timely notice of appeal deprives [an appellate] [c] ourt of

1 See Brown v. Armstrong , 348 So. 3d 670, 670 (Fla. 5 th DCA 2022); Brown v. Garcia , 322 So. 3d 782, 782 (Fla. 5 th DCA 2021); Champion v. Zuilkow ski , 182 So. 3d 689, 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Raymonvil v. Lewis , 46 So. 3d 139, 139

– 40 (Fla. 5th DCA 201 0 ); Reed v. Reed , 816 So. 2d 1246, 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 20 0 2). To be clear, we take no position on the merits of Jamison’s motion to vacate the final judgment of injunction for protection

.
2 Jamison’s notice also indicated that he was appealing the trial court’s order denying his motion for rehearing. This order is not independently reviewable. See Ricardo v. Wells Fargo Bank Nat ’l Ass’n , 166 So. 3d 967, 96 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).3

jurisdiction.” (citing Joseph v

. State , 15 7 So. 3 d 546, 5 48 ( Fla. 1 st DCA 2015)) ). 3
A PPEA L D ISMISSED

. W ALL IS and S OUD , JJ., concur
.

__ ____ ________ ____ ___________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331
.

__

____ ________ ____ ___________

3 Although Appellee did not raise the issue of our jurisdiction, an appellate court is required to assess its own jurisdiction

. Nacius v. One W. Bank , FSB , 211 S o . 3d 152, 153 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2017) (recognizing that an appellate court is required to assess its own jurisdiction even when not raised by the parties) (citations omitted).