STEVEN T. ADDISON, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
HONORABLE CECIL BROWN, ETC., RESPONDENT

Fla. 5th DCA | 1982-04-28
No. 82-314
DAUKSCH, C. J., and COWART, J., concur.
413 So. 2d 1240 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1982) Negative Treatment
Cited by 10 cases

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.

Synopsis

Petitioners filed an emergency writ petition to prevent trial on speedy trial grounds three days before trial was scheduled, but omitted critical facts about their own continuances and explicit waivers of speedy trial rights. The court denied the petition as frivolous and sanctioned counsel for breaching his duty of candor by omitting material facts in a last-minute petition.


Holding

The petition was denied as having no legal or factual merit because the argument that an amended information creates a new speedy trial period despite prior waivers is frivolous. While counsel breached his duty of candor by omitting critical facts, there was no deliberate concealment warranting contempt; however, sanctions were warranted for lack of care and candor.


Headnotes

[1] A petition for a writ of prohibition is properly denied when it lacks legal or factual merit.

[2] Filing an amended information does not render a prior information a nullity for speedy trial purposes if the defendant has waived speedy trial.

Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“this is especially important when the relief requested is urgently sought and the time insufficient to allow the opposition to present a response. What is a minor factual omission when there is time for a response becomes a major omission when ordering a response will result in a postponement of the trial.”

Establishes the heightened duty of candor required for emergency petitions with insufficient time for opposition response.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Addison, Caso, and Kilgus were charged with trafficking in marijuana and scheduled for trial on March 8, 1982. On Friday, March 5, 1982, petitioners f…

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.


Opinion of the Court
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.

Petitioners, Addison, Caso and Kilgus, were scheduled for trial on Monday, March 8, 1982, on a charge of trafficking in marijuana. By petition filed with this court late Friday afternoon, March 5, 1982, petitioners sought a writ to prohibit the trial, alleging a violation of the speedy trial rule, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191. While considering the inconvenience to the trial court, the state attorney’s office, witnesses and jury veniremen who had been summoned to appear, as well as the costs which were involved if the trial were postponed, this court concluded that because the allegations,1 if true, mandated issuance of the writ, a response from the State was necessary. The order requiring a response acted as a stay and therefore the trial was postponed. Fla.R.App.P. 9.100(f).

Upon receipt of the State’s response and documents relevant to the cause, we determined that critical information was omitted which counsel for petitioners knew, or should have known, would affect this court’s decision to order a response. The omitted information was the fact that petitioners had obtained three or more continu- anees and had specifically waived speedy trial under the rule.

To circumvent those waivers, petitioners contended that the filing of an amended information by the State rendered the first one a “nullity” therefore bringing about a “speedy trial” violation because the amended information was filed more than one hundred eighty days after the arrest. There is abundant authority to establish that this argument is frivolous. See Conner v. State, 398 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); State v. Corlew, 382 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); State v. Boyd, 368 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA) appeal dismissed 372 So. 2d 466 (Fla.1979); Homer v. State, 358 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 364 So. 2d 886 (Fla.1978). Therefore, the petition was denied for want of legal or factual merit.

Of more concern to this court than the outcome of this petition, was the part played by Lubin, counsel for petitioners. While an attorney always carries a duty and obligation of candor with the court, Ramey v. Thomas, 382 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Newberger v. Newberger, 311 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), this is especially important when the relief requested is urgently sought and the time insufficient to allow the opposition to present a response. What is a minor factual omission when there is time for a response becomes a major omission when ordering a response will result in a postponement of the trial. Therefore, where a last minute petition is filed it is mandatory that counsel not only act in good faith, but that the petition and the attached appendix accurately and completely reflect all factual matters which may affect this court’s decision.

In the case before us, we directed Lubin to appear before this court to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. After consideration of his testimony and review of the material presented to us, we have concluded that while Lubin has breached his duty of candor to the court, there was no deliberate effort to conceal relevant facts and therefore no contempt.

We do, however, conclude that the lack of care and candor of Lubin and his staff in preparation of a petition having no legal or factual merit warrants the imposition of sanctions pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410. We hereby remand this matter to the Honorable Cecil Brown to assess against Richard G. Lubin, attorney for petitioner, sanctions consisting of a reasonble fee for the services of the assistant attorney general in preparing his response to the petition, plus all costs incurred by the state in summoning and paying witnesses and veniremen for the trial scheduled for March 8, 1982, if those witnesses or veniremen were not otherwise utilized.

DAUKSCH, C. J., and COWART, J., concur. . Petitioners alleged that because of time limitations, no copy of the lower court’s order was available. In addition, no transcript of the hearing below was included in the appendix.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Lubin v. Dist. Court of Appeal, 428 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 1983)
    …PER CURIAM. Affirmed, 413 So. 2d 1240 (Fla.App.1982). ALDERMAN, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, McDonald, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.…
  • …llate panel issues an order to show cause automatically staying those proceedings. For a vivid, albeit somewhat unique and therefore perhaps not fairly representative, account of the adverse consequences of such an application, see Addison v. Brown, 413 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Such a debate, however, like the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a common pin, is better left to the statisticians and academicians. It is our considered judgment that the course of justice is better served…
  • Hays v. Johnson, 566 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
    …and fair in their petitions. See Hutchins v. Hutchins, 501 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Complete candor is especially vital where relief is urgently sought and the time for a response from the opposing party limited. See, e.g., Addison v. Brown, 413 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), affirmed, 428 So. 2d 663 (Fla.1983). Such full disclosure is clearly mandated by the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.2 As this court pointed out in Ramey v. Thomas, 382 So. 2d 78, 81 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), an attorney is first an…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw