Crow v. State, BG-357
| Decision Date | 10 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. BG-357,BG-357 |
| Citation | 500 So.2d 171,11 Fla. L. Weekly 1520 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1520 Thomas Floyd CROW, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and Glenna Joyce Reeves, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Larry Kaden, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
On Motion to Withdraw
Citing her inability to prepare an initial brief within the time constraints ordered by this court, the assistant public defender assigned to represent appellant in this cause, moves to withdraw. For the following reasons, we deny the motion.
The notice of appeal in this cause was filed on May 17, 1985. Through no fault of the public defender, but due to the lower court's granting of numerous extensions of time for preparation of the record, transcript and initial brief, the record was not transmitted until April 14, 1986. At that time, the public defender for the second judicial circuit was designated to represent appellant pursuant to section 27.51(4) Fla.Stat. (1985). Ms. Reeves, the assistant public defender assigned to the case, then requested and received two thirty day extensions of time to file the initial brief. The second order granting the extension of time provided that no further extensions would be granted in the absence of extreme emergency. Thereafter, counsel filed the present motion to withdraw.
The motion to withdraw points out that this is an appeal from a conviction of first degree murder, the record exceeds 2000 pages, and trial counsel listed some 14 judicial acts to be reviewed. Due to her extremely heavy case load, aggravated by an increasing number of jurisdictional briefs due in the Supreme Court resulting from the numerous inter-district conflicts interpreting the sentencing guidelines, counsel states that she will not be able to comply with the latest order of this court requiring the initial brief to be served by July 16, 1986. Since these factors were alleged in the previous motions for extension of time, counsel understands our last order as determining that the named factors do not constitute emergency grounds, and therefore requests to withdraw.
It is true that overburdened case loads and larger than average records are not necessarily deemed emergency situations justifying extensive delays in the progress of a case. However, we find that in the filing of this motion, counsel has demonstrated an emergency situation. Therefore, we sua sponte extend the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pub. Defender, Eleventh Jud. Cir.
...to withdraw in this court promptly upon [appointment]. Such motions will be considered on a case-by-case basis...." Crow v. State, 500 So.2d 171, 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Haggins v. State, 498 So.2d 953, 954 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) ("The circuit courts can better determine on a case-by-case basi......
-
Grube v. State, s. 87-2017
...below. This court previously visited the question of understaffing in the appellate division of the public defender in Crow v. State, 500 So.2d 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) and Kiernan v. State, 485 So.2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In the motion now before us the public defender requests relief si......
-
Litigating the ghost of Gideon in Florida: separation of powers as a tool to achieve indigent defense reform.
...Appeals by the Tenth Circuit Pub. Defender and by Other Pub. Defenders, 504 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987); Crow v. State, 500 So. 2d 171 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986); Haggins v. State, 498 So. 2d 953 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986) (en banc); Schwartz v. Cianca, 495 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. Dist......