NICHOLAS JOSEPH TUCCI, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal denied the State's motion to dismiss an appeal due to the appellant's attorney failing to file a brief on time. Despite the procedural delay, the court reviewed the merits and found no reversible error, thus affirming the lower court's judgment.
No, the appeal should not be dismissed. While the appellate rules are to be followed, dismissing the appeal punishes the appellant, not the attorney. The court reviewed the merits and found no reversible error.
“We have repeatedly held that the Appellate Rules are made to be followed and not to be ignored.”
Establishes the court's general stance on adherence to rules.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant's brief was more than three months overdue. The State repeatedly notified the appellant's counsel of the delinquency. As of the motion t…
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 Timeliness Of Appellate Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
The State has moved to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the attorney for appellant has failed to comply with the Florida Appellate Rules in that the appellant’s brief is more than three (3) months overdue.
It appears from the record that the appellant’s brief was due on or before February 16, 1966 and that on three (3) separate occasions subsequent thereto, to-wit: March 1, 1966, March 21, 1966, and April 8, 1966 the State by letter informed appellant’s counsel of the fact that the brief had not been filed on or before the due date of February 16, 1966.
As of the time of the filing of the motion to dismiss, to-wit: May 11, 1966, no appellant’s brief had been filed. In fact, the appellant’s counsel had not filed a brief for the appellant by the date of oral argument before this court of the State’s motion to dismiss on June 7, 1966, nor did appellant’s counsel appear at said oral argument.
We have repeatedly held that the Appellate Rules are made to be followed and not to be ignored.
To dismiss the appeal, when it may be meritorious, punishes the unfortunate appellant and not his attorney. For this reason, we deny the motion of the State to dismiss the appeal. However, we have considered each assignment of error presented by the appellant in this cause and have closely and carefully reviewed the record-on-appeal and have found no reversible error.
Therefore, the motion to dismiss is hereby denied and the final judgment and sentence is hereby affirmed.
LILES, Acting C. J., and HOBSON and PIERCE, JJ., concur.