Billens v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Billens v. State

176 So. 3d 284, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 9473, 2015 WL 3826355

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 22, 2015

DocketNo. 1D14-3881

StatusPublished

This text of 176 So. 3d 284 (Billens v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Billens v. State, 176 So. 3d 284, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 9473, 2015 WL 3826355 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By petition for writ of certiorari, David Billens seeks relief from a circuit court order granting the state’s motion to dismiss his appeal for lack of prosecution and failure to file an initial brief. The circuit court dismissed Mr. Billens’ appeal three days (one business day) after the state’s [285]*285motion was filed and did not therefore, provide him the ten days to respond to the state’s motion required by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(b)(5). “It is well settled that dismissal of an appeal without providing the requisite notice under rule 9.410 constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of the law.” Altman v. State, 41 So.3d 1030, 1033 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); see Gillespie v. City of Destin, 946 So.2d 1195, 1198-99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); see also Lindsey v. King, 894 So.2d 1058, 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (“ ‘[T]he great weight of Florida authority holds that the failure to file an initial brief by the deadline is not sufficient cause to justify dismissal of the appeal, unless there has been fair warning, in advance, that this consequence may flow from a late filing.’ ” (citation omitted)). The state has conceded it cannot show good cause why the petition should not be granted.

Accordingly, we grant - the petition, quash the order of dismissal, and remand for further proceedings.

WOLF, BENTON, and RAY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

By petition for writ of certiorari, David Billens seeks relief from a circuit court order granting the state’s motion to dismiss his appeal for lack of prosecution and failure to file an initial brief. The circuit court dismissed Mr. Billens’ appeal three days (one business day) after the state’s [285]*285motion was filed and did not therefore, provide him the ten days to respond to the state’s motion required by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(b)(5). “It is well settled that dismissal of an appeal without providing the requisite notice under rule 9.410 constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of the law.” Altman v. State, 41 So.3d 1030, 1033 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); see Gillespie v. City of Destin, 946 So.2d 1195, 1198-99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); see also Lindsey v. King, 894 So.2d 1058, 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (“ ‘[T]he great weight of Florida authority holds that the failure to file an initial brief by the deadline is not sufficient cause to justify dismissal of the appeal, unless there has been fair warning, in advance, that this consequence may flow from a late filing.’ ” (citation omitted)). The state has conceded it cannot show good cause why the petition should not be granted.

Accordingly, we grant - the petition, quash the order of dismissal, and remand for further proceedings.

WOLF, BENTON, and RAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 So. 3d 284, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 9473, 2015 WL 3826355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/billens-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack