BRIAN KEITH CARSTEN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A petition for belated appeal must be denied when the motion for rehearing was not timely filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(j), as an untimely motion does not delay rendition of the underlying order.
[1] A motion for rehearing that is not timely filed does not delay rendition of the underlying order under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(j), and therefore does not…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarsten sought a belated appeal of a July 27, 2020 order denying his postconviction motion. His motion for rehearing was not timely filed.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Petition For Extraordinary Writ cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D21-1623 _____________________________
BRIAN KEITH CARSTEN,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent. _____________________________
Petition for Belated Appeal—Original Jurisdiction.
September 2, 2021
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner seeks belated appeal of a July 27, 2020, order denying a postconviction motion. Because Petitioner’s motion for rehearing was not timely filed, it did not delay rendition of the July 27, 2020, order. See Fla. R. Crim. Pro. 3.850(j). Accordingly, the Court denies the petition for belated appeal on the merits. See Topps v. State, 865 So. 2d 1253, 1258 (Fla. 2004) (explaining that a decision on an extraordinary writ petition that “clearly shows that the issue was considered by the court on the merits” is deemed a decision “which would later bar the litigant from presenting the issue under the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel”). LEWIS, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
2 _____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Brian Keith Carsten, pro se, Petitioner.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Adam B. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.