CHARLES CALI AND NICHOLAS MONTONE
v.
STATE
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 Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's judgment because the plaintiff in error failed to file a brief on the merits of the case, as required by court rules. The court found that affirming the judgment was appropriate according to the rights of the case.
Yes, the judgment should be affirmed because the plaintiff in error failed to comply with the court's rules regarding the filing of briefs on the merits.
“When no brief has been filed by the plaintiff in error or appellant, within the time required by, or in accordance with, the rules hereinbefore set forth, the cause may be disihissed or costs imposed upon the party thus-in default, upon motion of the defendant in error or appellee or by the court o'f its own motion, or the judgment may be affirmed, unless; upon motion, for good cause shown, the court sees fit to permit additional time for the amendment of briefs filed or the filing of new briefs, in compliance with the requirements of the foregoing rules.”
This quote from Amended Rule 20 outlines the court's options when a party fails to file a required brief.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant in error filed a motion to affirm the judgment of the lower court. The plaintiff in error had not filed a brief on the merits of the cas…
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 Failure To File Brief cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before us on motion of the defendant in error to affirm the judgment on the record because plaintiff in error has not filed a brief in the Supreme Court on the merits of the case. Amended Rule 20. provides, in part as follows:
“When no brief has been filed by the plaintiff in error or appellant, within the time required by, or in accordance with, the rules hereinbefore set forth, the cause may be disihissed or costs imposed upon the party thus-in default, upon motion of the defendant in error or appellee or by the *493court o'f its own motion, or the judgment may be affirmed, unless; upon motion, for good cause shown, the court sees fit to permit additional time for the amendment of briefs filed or the filing of new briefs, in compliance with the requirements of the foregoing rules.”
We have examined the record and, being advised of our opinion and judgment to be given in this regard, find that “according to the right of the case” the judgment should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford, and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yates v. State, 509 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…ck on a sentence imposed in violation of law. Appellant’s final point is without merit. By pleading guilty, he waived any infirmities in the form of the information not fatal to its sufficiency to charge an offense. See Lends v. Mayo, 127 Fla. 488, 173 So. 346 (1937); Metchik v. State, 286 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) (attacking an information for vagueness comes too late after a plea of guilty). The order denying relief is reversed in part and the cause is remanded with directions to reduce the period…
-
Peterson v. Louie L. Wainwright, 145 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1962)…ntence should, of course, follow the information regarding the specific crime charged. Thornton v. Culver, Fla., 105 So. 2d 489. In this instance the judgment and sentence are vague and ambiguous and should be corrected. Lewis v. Mayo, 127 Fla. 488, 173 So. 346. The petitioner is not thereby entitled to be released from custody. D’Alessandro v. Tippins, 98 Fla. 853, 124 So. 455 However, he should be returned before the [*858] trial judge for a proper adjudication and sentence. We have examined the other g…
-
Hope v. State, 588 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…ate, 251 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). Moreover, the plea of guilty or nolo contendere does not waive an infirmity in the form of an information which is fatal to the information’s sufficiency to charge an offense. See Lewis v. Mayo, 127 Fla. 488, 173 So. 346 (1937), Yates v. State, 509 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). In addition, the State contends that the defendant cannot show any actual prejudice resulting from the State’s failure to allege the three prior DUI convictions in the information itself.…