BROXTON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A petitioner seeking belated appellate relief must plead specific facts showing either that counsel was requested but failed to pursue the appeal, that the petitioner was misadvised about appellate review, or that circumstances beyond the petitioner's control prevented timely filing.
[1] A petitioner seeking belated appellate relief under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c)(4)(F) must plead specific facts demonstrating either that counsel was req…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 petitioner's own neglect is not a basis for relief.”
Court's conclusion regarding the dismissal of the petition
Broxton sought a belated appeal and claimed her lawyer failed to explain her right to appeal. However, her plea agreement contained her sworn statemen…
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 Notice Of Appeal Filing Deadline cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. A petitioner seeking a belated appeal must provide, among other things, a sworn statement of the “specific acts” that “constitute the basis for entitlement to” the relief sought. Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(4)(F).
A petition under this subdivision of the rule, in turn, must 1) “state whether the petitioner requested counsel to proceed with the appeal and the date of any such request”; 2) state “if the petitioner was misadvised as to the availability of appellate review or the status of filing a notice of appeal”; or 3) “identify the circumstances. . . that were beyond the petitioner’s control and otherwise interfered with the petitioner’s ability to file a timely appeal.” Id. (F)(i)–(ii).
The petitioner in this case fails to plead any of these facts. Instead, the petitioner premises her claim for relief on an averment that her lawyer failed to “explain her right to appeal.” This assertion is directly contradicted by her plea agreement, in which she stated, under oath, “My lawyer has explained to me what an appeal is.” Separately, the sentencing order to be reviewed, itself, advises the petitioner of her right to an appeal if a notice of appeal is filed within thirty days. Bottom line: The petitioner’s own neglect is not a basis for relief. DISMISSED. BILBREY, WINOKUR, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur. _____________________________