KEVIN MAURICE MITCHELL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; DEREK MITCHELL, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The court imposed sanctions against appellants' counsel, Larry L. Bryan, Esquire, for failing to properly prosecute appeals in two companion criminal cases. Despite orders to show cause and motions to dismiss, counsel failed to respond or advance the appeals, resulting in a public reprimand and placement on the court's warning list.
The court found that counsel's written responses and oral explanations did not constitute good cause for his failure to comply with appellate rules and court orders. While the conduct could be considered contemptuous, the court declined to impose such a severe sanction but instead imposed a public reprimand and placed counsel on a warning list for future violations.
[1] An appellate court may dismiss an appeal when the appellant fails to prepare the record on appeal and file initial briefs as required by appellate rules.
[2] Failure to respond to show cause orders regarding the dismissal of an appeal may result in the dismissal of the appeal.
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“We find that neither the written responses nor the oral explanation made to the court constitute good cause for counsel's failure to comply with the appellate rules and the orders of this court.”
Establishes that counsel's last-minute explanation for non-prosecution was insufficient to excuse months of inaction and disregard for court orders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNotices of appeal were filed on October 8, 1982, with initial briefs due December 27, 1982. The appellants failed to cause the record on appeal to be …
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 Appellate Rules Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On October 8, 1982, the notices of appeal in these companion cases were filed with the lower court. The initial briefs were due on December 27, 1982. On April 13, 1983, appellee moved to dismiss the appeals because appellants had not caused the records on appeal to be prepared and had not filed the initial briefs as required by the appellate rules. On April 15, this court entered orders directing appellants to show cause, within ten days, why the motions should not be granted. Appellants did not respond to the show cause orders or the motions to dismiss.
Because counsel for appellants, Larry L. Bryan, Esquire, failed to properly prosecute the appeals and ignored the orders of this court, he was directed to appear before the court and show cause why he should not be held in contempt. The day before he was to appear before the court, counsel filed written responses stating that he did not intentionally disregard the appellate rules or this court and that, although it appeared he had not prosecuted the appeal, actually he discovered there was nothing of legal substance to appeal because appellants pleaded guilty and there were no legal grounds on which to challenge the sentence. Along with the responses, appellants filed a notice of voluntary dismissal.
We find that neither the written responses nor the oral explanation made to the court constitute good cause for counsel’s failure to comply with the appellate rules and the orders of this court. Although counsel’s actions might be considered contemptuous, we decline to impose such a severe sanction at this time. However, by the publication of this order, Larry L. Bryan, Esquire, is publicly reprimanded for the manner in which he handled these appeals. Counsel is warned that any future violations of the appellate rules or disregard for the orders of this court may result in more severe sanctions being imposed including contempt. Counsel’s name shall be added to the list of attorneys who have been warned that their future misconduct in the handling of an appeal may result in sanctions being imposed against them.1 A copy of this order will be forwarded to the Florida Bar for any action it may deem warranted. Further, counsel is instructed to serve a copy of this order on his clients and send to this court a certificate of service showing compliance.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MILLS, BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur. . In Winstead v. Adams, 363 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), this Court served notice that an attorney who violates the appellate rules could be punished for his dereliction. Because a more severe punishment should be imposed upon an attorney who has persisted in flaunting the rules, the Court established the Culpa List, named from the maxim culpa teneat suos auctores.
. These clients are specifically appellants herein, Kevin Maurice Mitchell and Derek Mitchell.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thornber v. City OF Fort Walton Beach, 534 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…lement the record on appeal with matters clearly out [*756] side the record. Counsel for appellant has previously been placed on this court’s culpa list by unpublished order for failing to comply with the orders of this court. See Mitchell v. State, 433 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), for an explanation of the culpa list. Counsel was warned that future violations of the rules and orders of this court might result in more severe sanctions. By publication of this order, George E. Day is publicly reprimanded fo…
-
Altchiler v. State, 442 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…cly reprimanded for the manner in which he handled this appeal. He is warned that any future violations of the appellate rules or disregard of an order of this court, in this or any other case, may result in a finding of contempt. Mitchell v. State, 433 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). A copy of this order will be forwarded to the Florida Bar for any action it may deem warranted. IT IS SO ORDERED. MILLS, BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.…
-
Ferguson v. Ferguson, 504 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…00 to appellee in each of these two cases (this is in addition to the $100 previously imposed in case number BP-299). Mr. Thompson shall pay the costs of this proceeding4 and his name will be added to the court’s “culpa list”, see Mitchell v. State, 433 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Counsel is instructed to serve a copy of this opinion on his clients in these two appeals and sent to this court a certificate of service showing compliance. Publication of this opinion will serve as a public reprimand for the c…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Winstead v. Adams, 363 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)