WILLIAM WOODS, 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 held that an attorney can be held in contempt for failing to prosecute an appeal after acknowledging no action was taken.
An attorney failed to take any action on an appeal after filing the notice of appeal and paying the filing fee. The client requested appointed counsel…
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 Attorney Sanctions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This matter is before the court upon an order to show cause directed to Attorney Patrick J. Curry as to why he should not be held in contempt for failing to timely prosecute this appeal on behalf of his client, the appellant herein.
The order to show cause was entered after Mr. Curry responded to an earlier order to show cause directed to appellant as to why this appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute since the record reflected that no action on the appeal had been taken since the filing of the notice of appeal on April 29, 1986, and no filing fee had been paid. In the response filed by Mr. Curry for appellant, Mr. Curry acknowledged that he had taken no action on behalf of Mr. Woods since April 29 and asked this court not to dismiss the appeal and to appoint the public defender to represent appellant. We have referred the matter of appellant’s entitlement to appointed counsel to the trial court and now must determine whether counsel should be held in contempt for failing to prosecute the appeal or take other action since the notice of appeal was filed.
We conclude that, in view of counsel’s acknowledgment that he has done nothing since filing the notice of appeal, counsel should be sanctioned. We find counsel in contempt and hereby assess a fine of $250.00 payable within thirty days.
HERSEY, C.J., and ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clauson Conway Taylor v. State, 740 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…from escorting the defendant outside. The effect of section 776.051(1) in a resisting arrest ease is to eliminate the need for proof that the officer was engaged in the performance of a lawful duty in making the arrest. See Lowery; Manuel v. State, 526 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Likewise, the state is not required to prove that the officer was engaged in a lawful duty if the defendant has committed a battery on the officer in the course of resisting an arrest. See Meeks v. State, 369 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1s…
-
Jones v. State, 570 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…lawful performance of his duties] held that a person is not justified in committing a battery upon a law enforcement officer to resist an unlawful arrest. District courts, including this court, have consistently followed Meeks. See Manuel v. State, 526 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), rev. den., 520 So. 2d 585 (Fla.1988); Silas v. State, 495 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Delaney v. State, 489 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); K.L.D. v. State, 476 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). See also Carwise v. State, 454…
-
State v. Manuel, 526 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…GLICKSTEIN, Judge, concurring specially. This is the companion case to Manuel v. State, 526 So. 2d 82 (1987), the decision in which is being issued today. The facts and analysis of the initial stop are contained in the other case. The issue here is whether it was error for the trial court to suppress evidence; namely, the gun found by the officer in…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence