burden cannot be accepted as justification for practices which hinder litigants in their efforts to seek redress or perceived injustice. The Bar should note that failure to follow the Rules of Appellate Procedure is a violation of M.R.A.P. 2(b) which authorizes the imposition of sanctions, and while none are imposed today, hereafter practitioners who fail to comply with Rule 17 should recognize that they do so at some risk.
¶7. The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. Recognizing that our system of certiorari from the Court of Appeals is in its infancy and that we have not heretofore addressed the present question in an opinion of the Court, we, in the interest of justice in this case, suspend our rules under M.R.A.P. 17(b) and grant to Walter Skinner a period of fourteen days from the date of this decision to file with this Court such further petition for writ of certiorari as may be appropriate under M.R.A.P. 17.
¶8. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI DENIED; PETITIONER GRANTED FOURTEEN DAYS FROM DATE OF THIS DECISION TO SEEK FURTHER RELIEF AS APPROPRIATE UNDER M.R.A.P. 17.
TO DENY: LEE, C.J., PRATHER, P.J., PITTMAN, BANKS, SMITH AND MILLS, JJ., CONCUR. McRAE AND ROBERTS, JJ., CONCUR IN RESULT ONLY.
TO GRANT ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR PETITIONER TO FILE A PROPER PETITION UNDER M.R.A.P. 17: PRATHER AND SULLIVAN, P.JJ., PITTMAN AND BANKS, JJ., CONCUR.
1. We observe that the same attorney has filed similar petitions in the past, which, in spite of their deficiencies, the Court considered in the interest of giving the petitioner-client a fair and just review. See Farmer v. State, 94-CT-01164-SCT, order entered May 15, 1997; Hardiman and Holland v. State, 95-CT-472-SCT, now pending before the Court.