
    ORDER DISMISSING CRIMINAL APPEALS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Jan. 4, 1988.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 1, 1988.
   On June 24,1987 this court entered an en banc order requiring the Public Defender of the Tenth Judicial Circuit to file briefs in 100 of the oldest delinquent appeals by July 81, 1987. On October 23, 1987, the Public Defender’s motion for rehearing was denied. In denying rehearing, however, this court extended the time limitation until November 23, 1987 and provided that “failure to comply with the schedules for the filing of briefs as is prescribed in this order will result in the dismissal of those delinquent appeals without prejudice to file petitions for reinstatement with the proper briefs attached.”

As of the date of this order, some 42 days following the extended time limitation, the Public Defender of the Tenth Judicial Circuit has filed briefs in only 20 of those 100 appeals. We take judicial notice that in the same time period the Public Defender of the Tenth Judicial Circuit has chosen to file briefs in over 80 appeals initiated much later than the 100 appeals referred to in our October 23, 1987 order.

The 100 appeals on the list attached to the denial of the motion for rehearing consist of cases in which the notices of appeal were filed in this court between May 30, 1986 and November 6, 1986. Thus, at the time of the order denying rehearing, these 100 appeals were all approximately 1 year to IV2 years old and had not even progressed to the point where the appellant’s briefs were filed. In terms of the appellate rules, briefs in these cases were overdue in excess of 8 months (see Rule 9.140(b)(5), Florida Appellate Rules, mandating that briefs be filed within 80 days from the filing of the notice of appeal). In contrast, many of the cases in which the Public Defender has chosen to file briefs, after the rehearing order, had notices of appeal filed in 1987, and some as recently as the latter half of 1987. In a few of the oldest cases on the list, the briefs are more than a year overdue yet the Public Defender chose to file briefs in some cases where the briefs were less than 1 month overdue.

Our concern for the rights of the appellants represented by the Public Defender has led us to be more tolerant in these seriously delinquent appeals when we would have long since dismissed equally delinquent appeals in civil matters. We have by our forbearance, in effect, given these appellants lengthy extensions of time to file briefs. Unfortunately, this course of action has not resulted in the briefs in these oldest appeals being filed as we had contemplated. The inaction on the part of the Public Defender as to these oldest appeals has adversely affected the processing of these parties’ appeals within any reasonable length of time. There are practical reasons for finality in appeals. To grant unlimited extensions of time would overlook the rights of the public to some finality in criminal proceedings. For instance, if an appeal is allowed to languish in the appellate court for years and ultimately results in a reversal for a new trial, the State might be prejudiced in reassembling its evidence due to the passage of time. Moreover, the evidence on behalf of the defendant may have become stale.

Therefore, the time has come for more drastic action which we trust will result in the filing of more of these briefs. We hereby dismiss the appeals in the cases listed below. Because it is not our purpose to foreclose the rights of the appellants, we do so without prejudice to the Public Defender or the appellant in any of these cases to seek reinstatement on or before March 4, 1988, by filing a motion for reinstatement showing good cause therefor accompanied by an appropriate appellant’s brief.

1. 86-1416 Scepkowski v. State

2. 86-1636 Hill v. State

3. 86-1680 Davis v. State

4. 86-1687 Collins v. State

5. 86-1729 A.R. v. State

6. 86-1826 Russell v. State

7. 86-1914 Matire v. State

8. 86-1974 Koenig v. State

9. 86-2082 Ward v. State

10. 86-2098 Theodules v. State

11. 86-2111 Washington v. State

12. 86-2115 Kennedy v. State

13. 86-2124 Caldwell v. State

14. 86-2125 Young v. State

15. 86-2127 Jackson v. State

16. 86-2178 Hartman v. State

17. 86-2223 Douglas v. State

18. 86-2242 Hartman v. State

19. 86-2251 Galvez-Martinez v. State

20. 86-2252 Cail v. State

21. 86-2270 Williams v. State

22. 86-2295 P.W. v. State

23. 86-2305 Ledesma v. State

24. 86-2306 Maney v. State

25. 86-2311 Rivera v. State

26. 86-2342 Wright v. State

27. 86-2344 Jaggers v. State

28. 86-2347 Sparkman v. State

29. 86-2357 Diaz v. State

30. 86-2384 Duque v. State

31. 86-2402 Sanders v. State

32. 86-2460 Williams v. State

33. 86-2480 Brabant v. State

34. 86-2493 Farrar v. State

35. 86-2495 Smith v. State

36. 86-2496 Jones v. State

37. 86-2500 Salermo v. State

38. 86-2512 Medina v. State

39. 86-2514 Bogan v. State

40. 86-2548 Wilson v. State

41. 86-2552 Martinez v. State

42. 86-2553 Williams v. State

43. 86-2561 Crigler v. State

44. 86-2562 Wood v. State

45. 86-2614 Rynicki v. State

46. 86-2615 Parrish v. State

47. 86-2620 Hicks v. State

48. 86-2628 Moore v. State

49. 86-2634 Williams v. State

50. 86-2649 Williams v. State

51. 86-2652 Constantine v. State

52. 86-2653 Constantine v. State

53. 86-2666 LeFresne v. State

54. 86-2667 Crumity v. State

55. 86-2691 Bolden v. State

56. 86-2696 Jackson v. State

57. 86-2697 Manis v. State

58. 86-2698 Maynard v. State

59. 86-2707 Crews v. State

60. 86-2718 Park v. State

61. 86-2719 Brewer v. State

62. 86-2720 Rice v. State

63. 86-2725 Velez v. State

64. 86-2733 Polen v. State

65. 86-2735 McDaniels v. State

66. 86-2739 Hodo v. State

67. 86-2740 Johnson v. State

68. 86-2755 Parrish v. State

69. 86-2756 Parrish v. State

70. 86-2760 Green v. State

71. 86-2762 Marion v. State

72. 86-2776 Dollison v. State

73. 86-2799 Bickler v. State

74. 86-2803 Thomas v. State

75. 86-2809 Bass v. State

76. 86-2818 Johnson v. State

77. 86-2825 Small v. State

78. 86-2832 Self v. State

79. 86-2834 Collins v. State

APPENDIX

IN THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, LAKELAND, FLORIDA

EN BANC.

ORDER ON PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL APPEALS BY THE TENTH CIRCUIT PUBLIC DEFENDER AND BY OTHER PUBLIC DEFENDERS

In an order entered en banc, dated March 31, 1987, this court addressed the serious problem of the backlog of cases assigned to the Tenth Circuit Public Defender’s Office. In that order we required the Tenth Circuit Public Defender to file briefs in the one hundred fifty oldest cases pending at that time, at a rate of fifty briefs per month, and requested a response from all potentially affected parties as to why the Tenth Circuit Public Defender should not be discharged from one hundred fifty other delinquent criminal appeals and the local public defenders or specially appointed public defenders be assigned to prosecute those appeals.

We have received responses from the circuit public defenders within this district, various county attorneys, several chief circuit judges, several state attorneys, and the attorney general’s office. They are unanimous in their opposition to the transfer of these delinquent criminal appeals from the Tenth Circuit Public Defender. Their responses assert that the local public defenders have neither the manpower nor funds necessary to handle appeals and that the county budgets have not been funded to pay specially appointed public defenders for the purpose of handling appeals. In considering the responses together with other factors, we have determined that a transfer of these cases would result in further delay in the processing of the delinquent appeals and that the solution to this problem lies elsewhere.

Since our March 31 order, the Tenth Circuit Public Defender has complied with the requirement to file briefs in the fifty oldest cases each month. However, that rate is not sufficient to keep up with newly filed appeals, let alone to catch up the backlog. We have received a letter from the Tenth Circuit Public Defender, dated June 11, 1987, pointing out that the backlog continues to grow and that there will be five hundred seventy-eight appeals awaiting briefs by September 30, 1987.

Our March 31 order was entered prior to the beginning of the Florida legislature’s annual session. The session has now been completed, and we must assume that the legislature was aware of the funding problems of the Public Defender of the Tenth Judicial Circuit. We also assume, in light of the gravity of the problem and the enormity of the backlog, that the legislature has attempted to provide the Tenth Circuit Public Defender with sufficient funds with which to timely process appeals. In his letter of June 11, the Tenth Circuit Public Defender has advised us that he has received additional funding for new positions and has assigned two additional attorneys to appeals.

To prevent the abridgment of appellants’ constitutional rights due to the Tenth Circuit Public Defender’s inability to timely handle the appeals and to effect the orderly and timely processing of these appeals, it is urgent that this court take immediate further action as the backlog of delinquent criminal appeals continues to increase. The Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, Rule 2.085(a), provide that “[¡judges and lawyers have a professional obligation to terminate litigation as soon as it is reasonably and justly possible to do so.”

Therefore and after due consideration being given to the positions expressed in the responses to this court’s March 31 order, we find it necessary to increase the total number of cases in which the Tenth Circuit Public Defender will file briefs each month. Beginning in July 1987 the Tenth Circuit Public Defender will file briefs in one hundred of the oldest delinquent cases per month. Attached as an exhibit to this order is a list of the oldest one hundred cases in which briefs shall be filed by July 31, 1987. Further orders with exhibits will follow specifying the next oldest cases in which briefs are to be filed in subsequent months at the rate of one hundred per month.

We anticipate that the above schedules will serve to bring current the Public Defender’s estimated September 1987 backlog of five hundred seventy-eight briefs. We also expect that by January 1, 1988, the Public Defender will maintain the appeals in a current status as the briefs become due.

Failure to comply with the schedules for the filing of briefs as is prescribed in this order will result in the dismissal of those delinquent appeals without prejudice to file a petition for reinstatement with the proper briefs attached.

Entered en banc this 24th day of June, 1987.

DANAHY, C.J., and SCHEB, RYDER, CAMPBELL, SCHOONOVER, LEHAN, FRANK, HALL, SANDERLIN, and THREADGILL, JJ., concur. 
      
      . The unpublished order of June 24, 1987 is attached. See also Haggins, et al. v. State, 498 So.2d 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
     