YARELIS ABAD-GODOY, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The court held that the motion for rehearing en banc was abusive and struck it, ordering counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.
Appellant sought rehearing en banc after a panel decision affirmed the lower court's denial of her motion for post-conviction relief. The initial appe…
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 Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) cases and more on FLexlaw
*614ON MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Appellant seeks rehearing en banc from the panel decision affirming the lower court’s summary denial of her Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. In her rule 3.850 motion, Appellant alleged that her guilty plea and resulting probationary sentence were the product of ineffective assistance of counsel. Her appeal was marginal at best, having failed to provide a statement of the facts or any record references to the record on appeal, in violation of the rules of appellate procedure. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.210(b). The argument was vague and completely devoid of merit. We disposed of the appeal without a written opinion.
Now, Appellant seeks rehearing en banc. Instead of directing our attention to particular points of law or fact that we allegedly overlooked, however, the motion simply regurgitates, word-for-word, the nine-page argument section of the initial brief without the slightest variation.1 As such, it is quintessential re-argument, a practice that we have repeatedly condemned as abusive. See Marion v. Orlando Pain & Med. Rehab., 67 So.3d 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Amador v. Walker, 862 So.2d 729 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Accordingly, we strike the motion for rehearing. Snell v. State, 522 So.2d 407, 408 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Furthermore, we direct counsel to appear before the original panel on November 13, 2012, at 8:45 a.m., and show cause why sanctions should not be imposed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(a). We reserve jurisdiction for this purpose.
MOTION STRICKEN; SHOW CAUSE ORDER ISSUED.
ORFINGER, C.J., GRIFFIN, SAWAYA, PALMER, LAWSON, EVANDER, COHEN, JACOBUS and BERGER. JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jedak Corp. v. Seabreeze Off. Assocs., LLC, 248 So. 3d 242 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…RPY, JJ., concur. The request for rehearing consisted primarily of prohibited re-argument in violation of established precedents from this Court. See , e.g. , McDonnell v. Sanford Airport Auth. , 200 So. 3d 83 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) ; Godoy v. State , 99 So. 3d 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) ; Amador v. Walker , 862 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Similarly, while the motion expressed disagreement with the opinion, it failed to identify any ambiguity necessitating clarification. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.330(a). Only co…
Authorities Cited
- Snell v. State, 522 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Prince v. State, 862 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Aracelis Amador v. Meche Walker, 862 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Marion v. Orlando Pain & Med. Rehab., 67 So. 3d 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)