Case ID: so2d_285/html/0622-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM. PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lawrence J. FARHAT, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. U-204.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Oct. 30, 1973.
    On Rehearing Nov. 20, 1973.
    Louis O. Frost, Public Defender, and James O. Brecher, Asst. Public Defender, for petitioner. •
    Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The public defender of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, by an instrument signed on his behalf by an assistant public defender, has petitioned this Court for a Hollingshead appeal and alleges the following material facts: On July 24, 1973, petitioner plead guilty to the offense charged; on August 21, 1973, adjudication was withheld and petitioner was placed on three years probation; that the trial court entered an order dated August 30, 1973, appointing the public defender to represent petitioner on appeal to this Court; and that the trial court’s order dated August 30, 1973, was not received by the office of the public defender until “July 25, 1973”. Obviously, the allegation by petitioner that his office did not receive the trial court’s order until a month prior to said order being entered is incorrect.

The following statement of this Court in Johnston v. State, 283 So.2d 120 (Opinion, filed September 20, 1973), is apropos to the instant petition, viz :

“We hope that pointing out this error on the part of the attorneys may benefit them as well as being a suggestion to other lawyers about carelessness in preparing for appeals.”

The instant petition is denied.

RAWLS, C. J., and SPECTOR and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

By Petition for Rehearing, James O. Brecher, Assistant Public Defender, alleges, inter alia:

1. That the error pointed out by this Court in its opinion of October 30, 1973, is clearly one of carelessness.

2. That a reading of the documents forwarded in support of petitioner’s petition for “Hollingshead” Appeal shows that the proper date was September 25, 1973, and not July 25, 1973.

The sole document filed with the Petition for Hollingshead Appeal is a xerox copy of an order appointing the public defender to represent petitioner. This order reflects that it was filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court on September 24, 1973; it does not reflect that a copy was forwarded to petitioner. So, at the time the opinion of this Court was rendered, the sole allegation or information available was Mr. Brecher’s allegation of September 26, 1973, that the public defender’s office had not been notified until July 25, 1973, which was one day after petitioner entered his plea of guilty.

We agree with petitioner’s attorney’s statement in the petition for rehearing that petitioner’s right to an appeal has been frustrated and hereby grant petitioner full appellate review pursuant to the dictates of Hollingshead v. Wainwright, and suggest to petitioner’s attorney that he expedite this appeal inasmuch as same has been delayed more than an additional month due to his carelessness.

RAWLS, C. J., and SPECTOR and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.