W.T. CREEL, APPELLANT,
v.
AFFORDABLE HOMES OF PENSACOLA, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES
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 on appellant's counsel for failure to timely prosecute the appeal, including failure to file briefs on time and improper extensions, resulting in a public reprimand and addition to a list of attorneys who have failed to properly practice before the court.
The court imposed sanctions on counsel, publicly reprimanding attorney Joe G. Hosner and warning of future contempt proceedings for similar violations. The court also refused to accept the initial notice of voluntary dismissal and required a new notice signed personally by the appellant acknowledging receipt of the court's opinion.
[1] A court may order counsel to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for disregarding appellate rules and failing to prosecute an appeal.
[2] A motion for extension of time must comply with applicable rules and explain the reasons for the failure to timely serve a brief or move for an extension.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Appellant's motion for extension of time did not comply with the requirements of Rule 9.300(a) and did not explain why appellant had failed to either timely serve the initial brief or move for an extension of time.”
Establishes the procedural defects in counsel's motion for extension
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant's counsel failed to file the initial brief, which was nearly three months overdue. When a motion to dismiss was filed, counsel submitted a m…
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.
Appellee filed a motion to dismiss this appeal when appellant’s brief was almost three months overdue. Appellant was directed to show cause why the motion to dismiss should not be granted. In response, appellant filed a motion for extension of time. In the motion appellant’s counsel explained that he had been out of the office or unable to work for the past 30 days due to an emergency medical situation involving a family member and extended litigation in federal court. Counsel asked for 15 days from the date of service of the motion in which to file the initial brief, and certified that he had not consulted opposing counsel, but by service of the motion was doing so and requesting opposing counsel to either state he had no objection or file a proper objection.
Appellant’s motion for extension of time did not comply with the requirements of Rule 9.300(a) and did not explain why appellant had failed to either timely serve the initial brief or move for an extension of time. Further, appellant failed to file the initial brief within the 15 day period requested in the motion for extension of time. Therefore, in accordance with Winstead v. Adams, 363 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), counsel for appellant, Joe G. Hosner, was ordered to appear before the court and show cause why he should not be held in contempt and punished accordingly for his disregard of the appellate rules and his failure to properly prosecute the appeal. Counsel was also ordered to serve and file the initial brief within 10 days.
The initial brief was not filed within 10 days of the order; however, the day counsel appeared before the court, a notice of voluntary dismissal was filed stating the case had been settled.
We find that the counsel’s failure to properly prosecute this appeal in accordance with the appellate rules warrants the imposition of sanctions. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.410. By publication of this order, Joe G. Hosner, Esquire, is publicly reprimanded for his conduct and warned that any future violation of the appellate rules or failure to obey an order of this court, in this or any other case, may result in a contempt proceeding. Counsel’s name will be added to the list of attorneys who have failed to properly practice before this court. See Mitchell v. State, 433 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Further, due to the manner in which this case has been handled, this court will not accept the notice of voluntary dismissal as filed. Counsel is instructed to file another notice of voluntary dismissal, within 15 days, signed by appellant personally. The notice shall contain a paragraph stating that appellant was given a copy of this opinion to read prior to signing the notice of voluntary dismissal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MILLS, BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alwin J. Jacobs v. State, 880 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2004)…to relief on each ground”); Mallory v. State, 577 So. 2d 987, 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (remanding the case because the defendant’s motion stated a facially sufficient IAC claim regarding the failure to investigate alibi witnesses); Harrell v. State, 443 So. 2d 1080, 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (remanding the case on the IAC claim that defense counsel failed to contact potential alibi witnesses after the defendant provided their names and addresses because the trial court summarily denied the claim and failed to at…
-
Harrell v. State, 458 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…er summarily deny defendant’s motion, attaching, to its order those portions of the record which conclusively showed he was not entitled to relief, or hold an evidentiary hearing and rule on the allegations presented in his motion. Harrell v. State, 443 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Pursuant to this court’s mandate, the trial court reviewed the matter and summarily denied the motion. This time the trial judge attached to his order a transcript of the September 23 hearing. From that transcript it appears tha…
Authorities Cited
- Winstead v. Adams, 363 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Mitchell v. State, 433 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)