The Florida Bar v. Robinson, Nos. 82886
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM; GRIMES |
| Citation | 654 So.2d 554 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly S231 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. R. Michael ROBINSON, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 11 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 82886,83590 |
Page 554
v.
R. Michael ROBINSON, Respondent.
May 11, 1995.
Page 555
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, and David R. Ristoff, Branch Staff Counsel and Joseph A. Corsmeier, Asst. Staff Counsel, Tampa, for complainant.
Joseph F. McDermott, St. Pete Beach, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The Florida Bar petitions this Court for review of the referee's findings and recommendation that attorney R. Michael Robinson receive a public reprimand and two years probation and be assessed the costs of the proceedings along with other disciplinary sanctions. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, Sec. 15, Fla. Const.
The Florida Bar filed a two-count complaint against Robinson. Count one alleged that Robinson had failed to adequately communicate with a client. Count two alleged Robinson had neglected to file a notice of appeal on behalf of another client. The Bar subsequently filed a second complaint against Robinson alleging he had failed to adequately prepare for another client's criminal trial. All three cases were consolidated for hearing before a referee.
At the hearing before the referee, the Bar presented substantial evidence to prove the three charges against Robinson as set out above. In response, Robinson offered mitigating evidence. As to the inadequate communication charge, for example, Robinson stated that his client had moved several times and his client had also been hospitalized in the psychiatric units of two different Veterans' Administration hospitals.
As to the inadequate trial preparation charge, Robinson claimed that he nonetheless competently represented his client at trial, and his client was found guilty of lesser charges. The client's appellate attorney corroborated this testimony. 1 Robinson has called to our attention, without objection from the Bar, that since this case was heard, the Second District reversed both of his client's convictions on issues that Robinson preserved for review during trial, see Holmes v. State, 642 So.2d 1387 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). In addition, Robinson notes that his other client has been granted permission to file a belated appeal.
At the conclusion of the disciplinary hearing, the referee found Robinson guilty of all three charges and recommended that Robinson be publicly reprimanded and placed on two years probation. 2 In support of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State, No. SC95844.
...by that law."). Yet, as this Court stated in Gray, "stare decisis does not command blind allegiance to precedent." 654 So.2d at 554. Hindsight has revealed that the Gentry test has proven unworkable, as even this Court has been unable to consistently apply it. "Perpetuat......
-
Mungin v. State, No. 81358
...the supreme court's holding in Gray that Gray is to be applied to "all cases pending on direct review or not yet final." Gray, 654 So.2d at 554 (citing Smith v. State, 598 So.2d 1063, 1066 (Fla.1992)); see also State v. Grinage, 656 So.2d 457, 458 (Fla.1995) (reiterating that the ......
-
Puryear v. State, No. SC01-183.
...legal rule, see Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1044, 1055 n. 12 (Fla.1999), or where there has been an error in legal analysis. See Gray, 654 So.2d at 554 (Fla.1995); see also Brown v. State, 719 So.2d 882, 890 (Fla.1998) (Wells, J., dissenting) ("[I]ntellectual honesty continues to demand......
-
Perez v. Dept. of Corrections, No. 98-2708-CIV.
...that the new rule it announced in that case would only apply "to all cases pending on direct review or not yet final." Id., 654 So.2d at 554. In so ruling, the Florida Supreme Court correctly declined to give its new ruling retroactive effect to otherwise final cases. The State ha......
-
Brown v. State, No. SC95844.
...by that law."). Yet, as this Court stated in Gray, "stare decisis does not command blind allegiance to precedent." 654 So.2d at 554. Hindsight has revealed that the Gentry test has proven unworkable, as even this Court has been unable to consistently apply it. "Perpetuat......
-
Mungin v. State, No. 81358
...the supreme court's holding in Gray that Gray is to be applied to "all cases pending on direct review or not yet final." Gray, 654 So.2d at 554 (citing Smith v. State, 598 So.2d 1063, 1066 (Fla.1992)); see also State v. Grinage, 656 So.2d 457, 458 (Fla.1995) (reiterating that the ......
-
Puryear v. State, No. SC01-183.
...legal rule, see Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1044, 1055 n. 12 (Fla.1999), or where there has been an error in legal analysis. See Gray, 654 So.2d at 554 (Fla.1995); see also Brown v. State, 719 So.2d 882, 890 (Fla.1998) (Wells, J., dissenting) ("[I]ntellectual honesty continues to demand......
-
Perez v. Dept. of Corrections, No. 98-2708-CIV.
...that the new rule it announced in that case would only apply "to all cases pending on direct review or not yet final." Id., 654 So.2d at 554. In so ruling, the Florida Supreme Court correctly declined to give its new ruling retroactive effect to otherwise final cases. The State ha......