Hollinger v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hollinger v. State

890 So. 2d 501, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 20241, 2004 WL 3015255

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 30, 2004

DocketNo. 1D04-3372

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 890 So. 2d 501 (Hollinger 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

Hollinger v. State, 890 So. 2d 501, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 20241, 2004 WL 3015255 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Telly Hollinger seeks review of an order granting the state’s motion to correct illegal sentence and resentencing him accordingly. Counsel for appellant, Charles E. Hobbs, II, has failed to respond to orders of this court directing the filing of a conformed copy of the order being appealed and a completed docketing statement, and has likewise failed to respond to an order to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed on this account. We further note that counsel for appellant has failed to ensure compliance with an order directing payment of the court’s filing fee.

In light of the foregoing, we are constrained to dismiss this appeal for failure to comply with the rules and orders of the court. We further direct the clerk to bring Mr. Hobbs’ conduct in this cause to the attention of the Florida Bar for its determination of whether disciplinary sanctions are warranted.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

ERVIN, WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Telly Hollinger seeks review of an order granting the state’s motion to correct illegal sentence and resentencing him accordingly. Counsel for appellant, Charles E. Hobbs, II, has failed to respond to orders of this court directing the filing of a conformed copy of the order being appealed and a completed docketing statement, and has likewise failed to respond to an order to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed on this account. We further note that counsel for appellant has failed to ensure compliance with an order directing payment of the court’s filing fee.

In light of the foregoing, we are constrained to dismiss this appeal for failure to comply with the rules and orders of the court. We further direct the clerk to bring Mr. Hobbs’ conduct in this cause to the attention of the Florida Bar for its determination of whether disciplinary sanctions are warranted.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

ERVIN, WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

890 So. 2d 501, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 20241, 2004 WL 3015255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollinger-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack