Brutus v. Mears Transp. Grp., 49 So. 3d 295 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
Brutus v. Mears Transp. Grp., 49 So. 3d 295 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: CHRISTOPHER LEON JACOBS v. STATE OF FLORIDA (fladistctapp, 2019-05-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" CHRISTOPHER LEON JACOBS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Drawdy, 136 So. 3d at 1212 ("The differences in the character and type of crime proven are as important as the spatial and temporal aspects when considering whether multiple punishments are appropriate." (quoting Murphy v. State, 49 So. 3d 295, 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010))).2 In other words, the impulse to put one foot 2By the dissent's rationale, Jacobs could not be convicted separately for two offenses even if he had been lurking behind a dumpster in the parking lot of the victim's workplace while sending her text messages from his phone.
discussed Cited "see" Drawdy v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Murphy v. State, 49 So.3d 295, 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), rev. granted, 79 So.3d 745 (Fla.2012) (table decision) (citing Meshell, 2 So.3d at 135 ). 3 The Fifth District interpreted legislative intent to separately punish two crimes arising from a single act even more broadly in Roughton v. State, holding that double jeopardy did not preclude dual convictions for sexual battery and lewd or lascivious molestation for the defendant’s single act of placing his mouth on the victim’s penis. 92 So.3d 284, 285-87 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (certifying direct conflict with Robinson v. State, 919 So.2d 6…
Gesuclais BRUTUS
v.
MEARS TRANSPORTATION GROUP and Bridgefield Insurance Company
No. 1D10-2795.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Oct 15, 2010.
49 So. 3d 295
Gesuclais Brutus, pro se, Appellant., No appearance for Appellees.
Roberts, Wetherell, Wolf.
Published
PER CURIAM.

By notice of appeal filed May 5, 2010, the appellant seeks review of an order rendered November 30, 2007. Because the notice of appeal appeared untimely, this court directed the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. The appellant has failed to respond to the show cause order. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See § 440.25(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007) (providing that orders of judges of compensation claims “shall become final 80 days after mailing of copies of such order to the parties” unless timely appealed); Fla. R.App. P. 9.180(b)(3) (providing this court’s jurisdiction is invoked if notice of appeal is filed within thirty days of rendition of order to be reviewed); see also, e.g., Metellus v. State, 900 So.2d 491, 495 (Fla.2005) (noting jurisdictional rule cannot be altered by court or by agreement of parties); Metro. Dade County v. Vasquez, 659 So.2d 355, 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (dismissing untimely appeal for lack of jurisdiction). All pending motions are denied as moot.

DISMISSED.

WOLF, ROBERTS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.