STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
BRYAN KENDRICK
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.
This case involves sanctions against an attorney for failing to comply with court orders in three consolidated appeals. The attorney repeatedly failed to file required briefs or properly withdraw from representation, leading to significant delays and the attorney's eventual discharge and referral to The Florida Bar.
Sanctions are warranted against Attorney Weed for his persistent failure to comply with court directives. The court has discharged him from representation and referred the matter to The Florida Bar for investigation.
[1] An attorney who fails to comply with multiple appellate court orders directing him to file required briefs or motions to withdraw may be discharged from representation an…
[2] An appellate court may impose sanctions on counsel for persistent non-compliance with court orders, particularly where the attorney has been given multiple opportunities…
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“The orders advised that if Attorney Weed had not been retained to represent the Appellee, he could file a motion to withdraw that complied with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.440(b) and State v. White, 742 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).”
This quote highlights the court's initial directives to counsel on how to properly withdraw from representation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State filed notices of appeal in three consolidated cases. The Appellee's counsel, Dirk R. Weed, failed to file answer briefs despite multiple ext…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.141(D) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Attorney Dirk R. Weed, Florida Bar Number 157538, appeared before this court on Wednesday, March 4, 2020, to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to comply with this court's orders in the consolidated cases.
- 2 - The State filed notices of appeal in the three cases on January 4, 2018. The notices that initiated appeal numbers 2D18-135 and 2D18-136 were transmitted to this court on January 8, 2018; the notice that initiated appeal number 2D18-574 was transmitted to this court on February 15, 2018. The notices were served on the Appellee's trial counsel, Dirk R. Weed. After several extensions of time, the State filed its initial briefs on January 22, 2019. On April 11, 2019, this court issued orders in 2D18-135 and 2D18-574 directing counsel for the Appellee to file an answer brief within thirty days. The same order issued in 2D18-136 on May 24, 2019. The orders advised that if Attorney Weed had not been retained to represent the Appellee, he could file a motion to withdraw that complied with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.440(b) and State v. White, 742 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Attorney Weed did not respond. On May 24, 2019, this court followed up with orders repeating the April 11 orders. Attorney Weed did not respond. On July 10, 2019, this court ordered Attorney Weed to respond to the May 24 orders within ten days or sanctions would be imposed. On July 23, 2019, Attorney Weed filed responses. On August 14, 2019, this court treated Attorney Weed's responses as motions to withdraw as counsel and denied them without prejudice to file amended motions that complied with Florida Rules of Appellate Procedures 9.140(d) and 9.440(b). The orders provided in the alternative that Attorney Weed serve the answer briefs within thirty days. Attorney Weed did not respond. On October 17, 2019, this court issued orders referring to Attorney Weed's July 23 responses and this court's August 14 orders and stating that compliance was
- 3 - overdue. The orders noted that although Attorney Weed's responses stated that the Appellee's whereabouts were unknown, the Department of Corrections' website indicated that the Appellee was under community supervision. The orders suggested that Attorney Weed consult the Department of Corrections in his efforts to locate the Appellee. The orders again directed Attorney Weed to file either a motion to withdraw that satisfies rules 9.140(d) and 9.440(b) or an answer brief within thirty days. The orders stated that if Attorney Weed was unable to locate the Appellee, he could file a status report describing his efforts to do so. Attorney Weed did not respond. On December 18, 2019, this court followed up with orders directing Attorney Weed to respond to the October 17 orders within twenty days. The orders warned that failure to comply could result in the imposition of sanctions. Attorney Weed did not respond. On January 13, 2020, this court directed Attorney Weed to respond to the October 17 order within ten days. The orders warned that failure to comply could result in the imposition of sanctions. Still, Attorney Weed did not respond. On February 13, 2020, this court issued orders requiring Attorney Weed to appear at the court's March 4 oral argument session to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for his failure to respond to this court's October 17, 2019, December 18, 2019, and January 13, 2020, orders.1 The orders advised that if Attorney Weed complied with the three orders by 1 p.m. on Thursday, February 27, 2020, he could seek to discharge the orders to show cause. Attorney Weed did not seek discharge of the orders to show cause. 1The orders to show cause mistakenly referred to the January order as having issued in 2019.
- 4 - On March 4, 2020, Attorney Weed appeared as ordered. He did not adequately explain why he failed to respond to six orders from this court.2 NORTHCUTT, LaROSE, and BLACK, JJ., Concur. 2The process involved in arranging a show-cause appearance for a recalcitrant attorney, informally dubbed a "visit" in this court, is labor-and time-intensive. Of course, so are many processes undertaken by the court's legal and clerical staff, but visits are particularly unproductive in the sense that much time and labor are spent on a matter collateral to the substance of the appeal and even to the preliminary procedural matters involved in an appeal. In addition, visits delay finality for the parties and any victims.