PER CURIAM.
Since the appellant's unauthorized successive motion for rehearing, filed after his first motion for rehearing was denied, did not suspend the rendition time for review of the order denying his motion for 3.850 relief, see Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pearson, 236 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1970), the present appeal, filed several months after the denial of the "first" motion for rehearing, is dismissed as untimely filed. See Dominguez v. Barakat, 609 So.2d 664 (Fla.3d DCA 1992).