been within the 2 year requirement of the rule but the City would have been just as “prejudiced” even though he would nevertheless have been clearly entitled to the appeal. Hence the fact that he actually filed only 40 days beyond the deadline contributes absolutely nothing in the way of prejudice to the City that it did not already face. I cannot see how it would irreparably alter the jurisprudence of post conviction relief in Florida to give this man his appeal. I would do so. 2 . This peculiar jurisdictional circumstance has an analogue. Often a prisoner will file a petition for habeas corpus in the circuit court, which denies relief. We receive appeals from such denials of habeas corpus relief in the circuit court. But sometimes prisoners then file a new petition for habeas r 94) (<HOLDING>). 5 . I would treat his March 16, 1999, filing
holding that order denying motion to vacate restitution order should be reversed where trial judge failed to inform defendant of right to appeal holding that an order denying a motion to vacate a  1782 order and denying a motion to quash the subpoena was immediately appealable holding an appeal may be taken from an order denying a motion to compel arbitration recognizing that an order denying a motion to modify a family court order where the motion is based on changed factual or legal circumstances is appealable as a special order after final judgment holding that when an appeal is properly taken from an underlying judgment the court of appeals has discretion to review a subsequent order denying a motion to vacate