TONY LEE FREEMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1993-04-28
No. 92-2051
ANSTEAD, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
621 So. 2d 472 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1993) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Fourth District Court of Appeal imposed sanctions on court reporter Linda J. Beumer for repeatedly failing to timely file a criminal trial transcript despite multiple extensions and court orders. The court rejected the trial court's refusal to impose sanctions and found that Beumer's excuses of being busy and backlogged were insufficient justification for the delays.


Holding

The court imposed a $250 fine on Beumer for her failure to comply with appellate procedure rules and court orders. The court rejected the trial court's conclusion that it lacked authority to impose sanctions and held that court reporters who delay criminal appeals through their own mismanagement cannot claim insufficient time as a justification.


Headnotes

[1] A court reporter's failure to timely file a transcript, without good cause, can result in contempt of court.

[2] Appellate courts may direct trial courts to conduct hearings and recommend sanctions for a court reporter's failure to comply with filing deadlines.

Previewing 2 of 6 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

Key Quotes

“Trial transcripts are essential to appellate review. In our system, which gives highest priority to trials and appeals in criminal cases, an additional 60 days to prepare a transcript of a five day criminal trial is certainly at the outer limit of "reasonably necessary".”

Establishes that the court found the initial extension generous and subsequent delays unjustifiable

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Beumer was the court reporter for Freeman's criminal appeal filed July 7, 1992. She received a 60-day extension to October 29, 1992, then requested an…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

On January 28, 1993, this court entered an order adjudicating court reporter Linda J. Beumer in contempt for failure to timely file a transcript for this appeal. We directed the trial court to conduct a hearing and to recommend what sanctions should be imposed on Beumer. We now review its order. This criminal appeal was filed on July 7, 1992. Designations to court reporter were filed on July 28, 1992. This court reporter, on August 7th, requested a 60-day extension of time for preparation of the transcript to October 29th, stating that the trial took five days and the transcript was estimated to be 1000 pages. This court granted that extension.

On October 26th, the court reporter moved to extend the time an additional 50 days to December 15th, giving as a reason that she was “backlogged” and needed more time. This court denied that motion for extension on December 4th, and directed Beumer to file the transcript by December 19th or face sanctions. In effect, this ruling provided the court reporter an additional 54 days beyond the original 60. However, nothing occurred until this court’s order of January 5, 1993, directing Beumer to show cause within 10 days why she should not be held in contempt for violating the order of December 4, 1992. On January 20th, this court received a letter from the court reporter dated January 13th, stating that she “ran into a few delays”, had “holiday plans”, and that the transcript had now been filed.

On January 28, 1993, this court adjudicated Beumer in contempt and directed the trial court to conduct a hearing within 30 days to recommend appropriate sanctions. Hearing nothing, this court entered another order March 5, 1993, requesting a status report, which resulted in a contempt hearing being scheduled in the lower court on March 19, 1993. A transcript of that hearing reflects that Beumer had no good reason for failing to meet her deadlines other than that she was too busy. Subsequently, instead of recommending sanctions as this court directed, the lower court decided it was “without authority to recommend or impose sanctions since Ms. Beumer has not violated any order of this court.”

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(2) and (3) provides that a transcript shall be prepared and filed within 30 days of service of the designation to the court reporter. If the transcript cannot be completed within 30 days, the reporter must request such additional time from the court as is “reasonably necessary,” and give specific reasons why additional time is needed.

Trial transcripts are essential to appellate review. In our system, which gives highest priority to trials and appeals in criminal cases, an additional 60 days to prepare a transcript of a five day criminal trial is certainly at the outer limit of “reasonably necessary”. In this case, of course, the court reporter requested another 50 days at the expiration of the 60 day period, and then did not file the transcript until over a month after the expiration of that additional 50 day period. She virtually ignored the orders of this court and gave no reason for any of this, other than that she had too much work.

We are not sympathetic to requests for extraordinary extensions of time because the court reporter has too many cases. It is not as if court reporters cannot estimate how much time it will take to prepare a transcript when they know the length of the trial. This court will not tolerate court reporters delaying criminal appeals, while defendants are incarcerated, because the reporters knowingly take on more work than they can timely perform.

It is therefore ordered that Linda J. Beu-mer shall pay a fine of $250.001 to the clerk of this court within 30 days of the date of this order for her failure to comply with her court reporter duties in this case.

ANSTEAD, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur. . She has previously been fined by this court for the same dereliction in another case.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • In re Downtown Reporting, LLC., 146 So. 3d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
    …ase, that the conduct of Downtown Reporting in these exemplar cases is, indeed contemptuous. As counsel for Downtown Reporting concedes, this Court has the power to fine or take other remedial action against Downtown Reporting. See Freeman v. State, 621 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (imposing a $250.00 fine on a court reporter for failure to timely file a transcript for appeal). However, the Court also recognizes the large effort Downtown Reporting had made to “right its ship” since our show cause order issu…
  • Roudley Personna v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw