Opinion
No. 2D16–1207.
07-06-2016
A.J.A., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
BY ORDER OF THE COURT.
The trial court previously appointed counsel to represent A.J.A. in this appeal. However, court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw certifying that after a conscientious review of the record he had determined in good faith that there were no meritorious grounds on which to base an appeal. Court-appointed counsel's motion to withdraw was granted in an order dated April 29, 2016, which also instructed the Appellant, A.J.A., that she had twenty days from the date of that order to file in this court a brief on her own behalf or through subsequently retained counsel and placed A.J.A. on notice that if a brief was not received within twenty days of the order, the appeal would be subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Since that time, A.J.A. has filed two pro se motions for extension of time to file her initial brief, both of which were granted, in part, by this court. In her second motion for extension of time, A.J.A. represented to this court that she had found an attorney but had to "come up with $500 more to retain [her] legal counsel" and that she was "asking for one more extension to be able to afford an attorney." This court granted A.J.A.'s second motion to the extent that she had fourteen days from June 16, 2016, within which to serve her initial brief.
Instead of serving her initial brief within that time, A.J.A. filed with this court an improper motion for appointment of regional counsel for appeal. Motions for the appointment of appellate counsel are to be served on and decided by the presiding judge in the lower tribunal. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.146(g)(4)(A). However, the lower tribunal already appointed appellate counsel to represent A.J.A., and appointed counsel has since withdrawn as stated above. Accordingly, A.J.A.'s motion to appoint regional counsel is denied. To the extent that A.J.A.'s motion might be deemed to include a request for a third extension of time, the request is denied.
Because A.J.A. has failed to serve an initial brief as provided by this court's order of June 16, 2016, this appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute.
LaROSE, CRENSHAW, and ROTHSTEIN–YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.