ARTHUR HILL, 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 denied the State's motion to dismiss the appeal, allowing the appellant's attorney to file a brief despite prior missed deadlines.
The State moved to dismiss the appeal because the appellant's attorney failed to timely file the brief, despite multiple extensions granted by both th…
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 Discretionary Review cases and more on FLexlaw
The State has moved to dismiss this appeal because of the dereliction of the attorney for the appellant in failing to timely file his brief.
The record of this court shows:
(1) That on July 28, 1965, the Criminal Court of Record of Polk County entered an order extending the time for filing the transcript of record.
(2) On October 25, 1965, a motion was filed in this court for an extension of time to file appellant’s brief, which was denied without prejudice to apply to the trial court.
(3) The Criminal Court of Record, on November 3, 1965, extended the time for filing the appellant’s brief for 30 days, which made appellant’s brief due December 2, 1965. The brief was not filed.
(4) On January 7, 1966, appellant’s attorney filed a second motion to extend time in which to file the brief in question. This court denied the extension January 11, 1966. Appellant’s brief, with the various extensions of time, was due to be filed on December 2, 1965.
The rules are made to be followed and not trifled with.
The attorney representing the appellant in this case has had quite a number of extensions. The State properly moved for the dismissal of the appeal because of the failure of the defendant’s attorney to properly represent and protect this defendant.
To dismiss the appeal, when it may be meritorious, punishes the unfortunate appellant and not his attorney, who is supposedly representing and protecting his client’s rights on this appeal. For this *760reason, we deny the motion of the State to dismiss the appeal and permit the attorney for the appellant to file a brief in this case.
After the State’s brief has been filed, we will consider the briefs of the parties and dispose of the case without oral argument.
ALLEN, C. J., and LILES and HOB-SON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Paula v. State, 185 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…brief; two by stipulation and one by petition. Appellant has also been granted one extension by the trial court. In this case we have dereliction of the same attorney for the appellant that we had in the case of Hill v. State of Florida, Fla. App., 185 So. 2d 759. We have this date entered an order denying the State’s motion in Hill, supra. We shall not repeat what we said in Hill, supra, but we deny the motion to dismiss the appeal and permit the attorney for the appellant to file a brief in this case. Aft…
-
Hill v. State, 185 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See also Fla.App., 185 So. 2d 759.…