HERBERT SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Herbert Smith, trial counsel in a criminal homicide case, appealed a sanctions order requiring him to reimburse Miami-Dade County $532.00. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as untimely because the sanctions order was final and appealable within thirty days of its April 2001 entry, not after the defendant's guilty plea in May 2004.
The court held that an order imposing monetary sanctions on trial counsel is a final, immediately appealable order that must be appealed within thirty days of its entry. The order is final because it marks the end of judicial labor as to the counsel, who is not a party to the underlying case. Therefore, Smith's appeal filed in 2004, nearly three years after the April 2001 order, was untimely.
[1] An order imposing monetary sanctions on trial counsel, directing payment by a date certain, is a final order for purposes of appeal.
[2] Appellate review of a final order imposing monetary sanctions on counsel must be sought within thirty days of the order's entry.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It is our view that an order imposing monetary sanctions on trial counsel and directing that the sanctions be paid by a date certain is a final order. It ended the judicial labor as to Mr. Smith, who was not a party to the case.”
Establishes the court's holding that sanctions orders on counsel are final and appealable immediately, not after final judgment in the underlying case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn April 2001, the trial court imposed sanctions against Herbert Smith, who was trial counsel for defendant Maurice Dalbec (charged with homicide), or…
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 Finality Of Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal
COPE, J.
The State moves to dismiss the appeal of a sanctions order entered against opposing trial counsel in a criminal case. We grant the motion.
Appellant Herbert Smith was trial counsel for Maurice Dalbec (“defendant Dal-bec”), who was charged with homicide. In April 2001, while that case was pending, the trial court imposed sanctions against Mr. Smith and ordered him “to make reimbursement to Miami-Dade County in the amount of $532.00 on or before May 18th, 2001.” Order, April 19, 2001.
Mr. Smith and defendant Dalbec timely petitioned for a writ of certiorari in this court, seeking to quash the sanctions order. This court ordered a response from the State, and then denied the petition for writ of certiorari without opinion. See Dalbec v. State, 792 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
In May 2004, defendant Dalbec entered a guilty plea to the charge of second degree murder. The trial court accepted the plea and imposed judgment and sentence.
Within thirty days after entry of the judgment and sentence against defendant Dalbec, Mr. Smith filed a notice of appeal of the April 2001 sanctions order entered against him.*
The State moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely filed. The State argues that appellate review of the April 2001 order imposing sanctions on counsel needed to be taken within thirty days of the date that it was entered, and cannot be appealed at this time. The State’s position is well taken.
It is our view that an order imposing monetary sanctions on trial counsel and directing that the sanctions be paid by a date certain is a final order. It ended the judicial labor as to Mr. Smith, who was not a party to the case. See Philip J. Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice § 21.2 at 322 (2005 ed.). Mr. Smith cites Cunningham v. Hamilton County, Ohio, 527 U.S. 198, 119 S.Ct. 1915, 144 L.Ed.2d 184 (1999), in support of his claim that orders imposing sanctions are not final orders appealable prior to the entry of final judgment. That case is not persuasive here, for the rules of finality in the federal appellate system differ from those in Florida. As already mentioned, in Florida, the traditional test for determining the finality of an order is whether the order marks the end of judicial labor. Judicial labor as to the sanctions entered against counsel, a nonparty to the case, ended on April 19, 2001.
Appeal dismissed.
*
The trial court had previously stayed the deadline for payment of the sanctions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Fla. House OF Representatives v. Expedia, Inc., 85 So. 3d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…by appealing the final judgment. In the present case, there is no ongoing proceeding between the parties to the lawsuit and the individuals who have been ordered to provide discovery. As to these individuals, the order is final. See Smith v. State, 902 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (holding that an order imposing sanctions against an attorney for one of the parties in a pending case is final and therefore immediately appealable by the attorney). Based on the holding in Calderbank and our own decision in Tran…
-
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt v. SP Healthcare Holdings, LLC, 163 So. 3d 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…of a group of ambulatory surgery centers from the plaintiffs, SP Healthcare Holdings and ASC Holdings, Inc. (Holdings). This appeal concerns an order imposing monetary sanctions against CFJB stemming from a discovery controversy. See Smith v. State, 902 So. 2d 179, 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (holding that an order imposing monetary sanctions on trial counsel and directing that the sanctions be paid by a date certain was a final, appealable order). We reverse and remand for further proceedings. A short history of…
-
Parrish v. RL Regi Fin., LLC, 194 So. 3d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…lly, an order imposing monetary sanctions against trial counsel and directing that they be paid on a certain date is a final, appealable order. See Burt v. SP Healthcare Holdings, LLC, 163 So. 3d 1274, 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (citing Smith v. State, 902 So. 2d 179, 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)). The sanctions order at issue here established an entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs, but it did not reduce the award to a fixed amount in a final order. An order determining an entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cunningham v. Hamilton Cnty., 527 U.S. 198 (U.S. 1999)