Czeczeli v. Department of H.R.S.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Czeczeli v. Department of H.R.S.

693 So. 2d 723, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5621

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 23, 1997

DocketNo. 96-1793

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 693 So. 2d 723 (Czeczeli v. Department of H.R.S.) 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

Czeczeli v. Department of H.R.S., 693 So. 2d 723, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5621 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

PER CURIAM.

In the initial brief filed by the appellant in this termination of parental rights case, appellant’s court-appointed counsel advised this [724]*724court that he had read the record and discovered no meritorious issues for appeal. He then requested the court to employ the procedure set forth in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh’g denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967), pertaining to indigent appeals in criminal cases.

H.R.S. then filed a motion- to dismiss this appeal. Counsel for the appellant filed a response to the motion which we deem to be a motion to withdraw as counsel. Prior to issuing a ruling on the motion to dismiss, this court granted the appellant thirty days to file a pro se brief. The thirty-day time period has expired and the appellant has failed to file a brief or any other paper. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal due to the appellant’s failure to prosecute. In so ruling, we join the third and fourth districts in holding that it is not required that Anders procedures be followed in appeals from orders terminating parental rights. See Jimenez v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 669 So.2d 340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Ostrum v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 663 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

Appeal DISMISSED.

PETERSON, C.J., and GOSHORN and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

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

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

PER CURIAM.

In the initial brief filed by the appellant in this termination of parental rights case, appellant’s court-appointed counsel advised this [724]*724court that he had read the record and discovered no meritorious issues for appeal. He then requested the court to employ the procedure set forth in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh’g denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967), pertaining to indigent appeals in criminal cases.

H.R.S. then filed a motion- to dismiss this appeal. Counsel for the appellant filed a response to the motion which we deem to be a motion to withdraw as counsel. Prior to issuing a ruling on the motion to dismiss, this court granted the appellant thirty days to file a pro se brief. The thirty-day time period has expired and the appellant has failed to file a brief or any other paper. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal due to the appellant’s failure to prosecute. In so ruling, we join the third and fourth districts in holding that it is not required that Anders procedures be followed in appeals from orders terminating parental rights. See Jimenez v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 669 So.2d 340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Ostrum v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 663 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

Appeal DISMISSED.

PETERSON, C.J., and GOSHORN and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

693 So. 2d 723, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/czeczeli-v-department-of-hrs-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack