Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

105 So. 2d 385

State v. Hardy

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 2, 1958

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1958-10-02

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1961

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1958-10-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The appellee, defendant below in a criminal cause, has moved for an extension of time in which to file brief on appeal. Under the rule the brief is due October 7, 19S8. The cause shown for the motion is that ap-pellee’s attorney of record “has been engaged in a political campaign for the past three (3) months and for this reason has not had an opportunity to work on the brief or the amendment to the brief.”

¶2The reason assigned is not good cause for the requested delay. Incalculable mischief and inordinate delay in the disposition of criminal appeals would unquestionably result if a contrary view were adopted. The fallacy of accepting movant’s ground for extension becomes evident when it is considered that political campaigns extend from the time that one announces his candidacy until the very day of the general election and that there is nothing to prevent the elected person from immediately announcing his intention to seek reelection.

¶3We have endeavored to impress upon members of the bar and court officials the importance of full compliance with the *386rules of procedure. Relaxation of those rules makes for sloppy advocacy and disrespect for the courts as well as for the laws they are charged with upholding.

¶4For the reasons stated the motion for extension of time will necessarily be denied.

STURGIS, C. J., CARROLL, DONALD, J., and O’CONNELL, STEPHEN C., Associate Judge, concur.
/105/so2d/385 · .json · Public domain