STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
VIRGINIA HARDY, 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.
A criminal defendant's attorney's engagement in a political campaign does not constitute good cause for an extension of time to file a brief on appeal.
The defendant, appellee below, moved for an extension of time to file a brief on appeal, citing his attorney's involvement in a three-month political …
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 Good Cause For Extension cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellee, defendant below in a criminal cause, has moved for an extension of time in which to file brief on appeal. Under the rule the brief is due October 7, 19S8. The cause shown for the motion is that ap-pellee’s attorney of record “has been engaged in a political campaign for the past three (3) months and for this reason has not had an opportunity to work on the brief or the amendment to the brief.”
The reason assigned is not good cause for the requested delay. Incalculable mischief and inordinate delay in the disposition of criminal appeals would unquestionably result if a contrary view were adopted. The fallacy of accepting movant’s ground for extension becomes evident when it is considered that political campaigns extend from the time that one announces his candidacy until the very day of the general election and that there is nothing to prevent the elected person from immediately announcing his intention to seek reelection.
We have endeavored to impress upon members of the bar and court officials the importance of full compliance with the *386rules of procedure. Relaxation of those rules makes for sloppy advocacy and disrespect for the courts as well as for the laws they are charged with upholding.
For the reasons stated the motion for extension of time will necessarily be denied.
STURGIS, C. J., CARROLL, DONALD, J., and O’CONNELL, STEPHEN C., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Hardy, 114 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
-
Parada Holding Co. v. Asher Sulkin, 126 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)…ting an appeal has previously been held to be an insufficient reason for denying a motion to dismiss the appeal. Nitsos v. Carlisle, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 144; accord, Lambert v. State, Fla.App.1958, 107 So. 2d 615; State v. Hardy, Fla.App. 1958, 105 So. 2d 385; cf. Savage v. Rowell Distributing Corp., Fla.1957, 95 So. 2d 415, 418. This court will not, under ordinary circumstances and without good cause shown, extend the time allowed hy the rules for the service and filing of briefs or for the performance…