NESMITH
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.
Kenneth Nesmith appealed from a circuit court conviction, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal as untimely because counsel failed to fully comply with the procedural requirements for filing a belated appeal petition under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c)(4)(F).
The court dismissed the appeal as untimely because the petition for belated appeal failed to fully comply with the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c)(4)(F), particularly regarding oath and content specifications.
“DISMISSED as untimely. Appellate counsel, who appears also to have been trial counsel, attempts to petition for a belated appeal within the context of this case, but that petition fails to fully comply with the oath and content requirements of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c)(4)(F).”
The court's holding explaining the grounds for dismissal—failure to comply with procedural requirements for belated appeals.
Kenneth Nesmith was prosecuted in Holmes County Circuit Court before Judge Russell S. Roberts. The appeal was not timely filed. Appellate counsel, who…
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
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
No. 1D2025-2128
KENNETH NESMITH,
Appellant,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Holmes County. Russell S. Roberts, Judge.
November 5, 2025
PER CURIAM.
DISMISSED as untimely. Appellate counsel, who appears also to have been trial counsel, attempts to petition for a belated appeal within the context of this case, but that petition fails to fully comply with the oath and content requirements of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c)(4)(F).
The court also references a trial counsel’s duties under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(d).
ROWE, KELSEY, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur. 2
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
Henry Mark Sims, Public Defender, and Russell S. Barrett, Assistant Public Defender, Bonifay, for Appellant.
No appearance for Appellee.