McCullum v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McCullum v. State

8 So. 3d 454, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3229, 2009 WL 981325

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 14, 2009

Docket1D08-0003

StatusPublished

This text of 8 So. 3d 454 (McCullum 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

McCullum v. State, 8 So. 3d 454, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3229, 2009 WL 981325 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Shamar L. McCullum timely seeks a belated appeal of a November 20, 2006, judgment and sentence of the circuit court. In response to an order to show cause, the state indicates that it does not oppose the granting of that relief. However, our investigation of the matter discloses that in fact a timely appeal of the judgment and sentence was taken, and was docketed as case number 1D06-6316. It appears that through no fault directly attributable to petitioner, that appeal was dismissed for failure to respond to the court’s order requiring payment of the filing fee or the filing of an order of insolvency entered by the lower tribunal. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the proper remedy is not to grant a belated appeal, but rather to reinstate the previously filed appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal in McCullum v. State, case number 1D06-6316, is hereby reinstated. The means by which that appeal will now proceed will be addressed by separate order issued under that case number.

ALLEN, WEBSTER, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Shamar L. McCullum timely seeks a belated appeal of a November 20, 2006, judgment and sentence of the circuit court. In response to an order to show cause, the state indicates that it does not oppose the granting of that relief. However, our investigation of the matter discloses that in fact a timely appeal of the judgment and sentence was taken, and was docketed as case number 1D06-6316. It appears that through no fault directly attributable to petitioner, that appeal was dismissed for failure to respond to the court’s order requiring payment of the filing fee or the filing of an order of insolvency entered by the lower tribunal. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the proper remedy is not to grant a belated appeal, but rather to reinstate the previously filed appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal in McCullum v. State, case number 1D06-6316, is hereby reinstated. The means by which that appeal will now proceed will be addressed by separate order issued under that case number.

ALLEN, WEBSTER, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 So. 3d 454, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3229, 2009 WL 981325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccullum-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack