GREGORY DALE KING, 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 attorney is held in contempt for failing to prosecute the appeal and is publicly reprimanded.
An attorney failed to prosecute an appeal as required by Florida Appellate Rules. The court issued a rule nisi, and the attorney's explanation for the…
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 Professional Responsibility Of Attorneys cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case is before the Court on a Rule Nisi dated September 17, 1973 issued to the Honorable Remus C. E. Allen, Attorney At Law of Tallahassee, Florida, directing him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of this Court for his failure to prosecute this appeal in accordance with his professional responsibilities as attorney for the appellant in accordance with Florida Appellate Rules. The said Remus C. E. Allen has this date appeared before the Court and given an explanation as to why this appeal has not been properly prosecuted as required by law which explanation we find to be insufficient and without merit.
It is therefore the judgment of this Court that the said Remus C. E. Allen be and he is hereby adjudged to be in contempt of this Court for his failure in the premises and he is hereby publicly reprimanded for his failure to discharge the duties and requirements of his employment as attorney for appellant. The said Remus C. E. Allen is hereby directed to forthwith procure from appellant and file in this caused by Friday, October 5, 1973 appellant’s sworn written consent that this appeal be dismissed in default of which he is directed to proceed with the prosecution of this appeal taking the necessary affirmative actions to place this appeal in a proper posture for dismissal on the merits in accordance with the rules of this Court.
RAWLS, C. J., and SPECTOR, WIG-GINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur. (Sitting en banc).