FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2024-0934

LT Case No. 2018-DR-147-DVAX

_____________________________

LARRY JAMISON, 

Appellant,

v.

CHAUNTRELL KNOX, 

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. 

Eric C. Roberson, Judge. 

Larry L. Jamison, Lake Butler, pro se. 

Chauntrell Knox, Jacksonville, pro se. 

August 9, 2024

LAMBERT, J.

Larry 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 of 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 injunction no longer exists. While 
2 

Jamison’s argument appears to have merit,1 we are compelled to 

dismiss this appeal because Jamison has failed to timely invoke 

our jurisdiction. 

Review of the 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 been filed within thirty days of the rendition of 

the subject order. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(b).

The trial court’s order denying Jamison’s motion to vacate the 

final judgment of injunction was rendered on February 23, 2024. 

Jamison then filed a motion for rehearing/reconsideration of this 

order. However, under rule 9.130(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. 

After the lower court denied his motion for rehearing, Jamison 

filed his notice of appeal on March 27, 2024, which was 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 this appeal.2 See Williams v. State, 

386 So. 3d 200, 201 (Fla. 1st 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. 5th DCA 

2022); Brown v. Garcia, 322 So. 3d 782, 782 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021); 

Champion v. Zuilkowski, 182 So. 3d 689, 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); 

Raymonvil v. Lewis, 46 So. 3d 139, 139–40 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); 

Reed v. Reed, 816 So. 2d 1246, 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). 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, 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).
3 

jurisdiction.” (citing Joseph v. State, 157 So. 3d 546, 548 (Fla. 1st

DCA 2015))).3

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

WALLIS and SOUD, 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 So. 3d 152, 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2017) (recognizing that an appellate court is required to assess its 

own jurisdiction even when not raised by the parties) (citations 

omitted).