WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL RICHARD E GERSTEIN JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG. THIS BLOG IS DEDICATED TO JUSTICE BUILDING RUMOR, HUMOR, AND A DISCUSSION ABOUT AND BETWEEN THE JUDGES, LAWYERS AND THE DEDICATED SUPPORT STAFF, CLERKS, COURT REPORTERS, AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHO LABOR IN THE WORLD OF MIAMI'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE. THIS BLOG HAS BEEN CALLED "THE DEFINITIVE BLOG ON MIAMI CRIMINAL LAW" BY THE NY TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE POPE, AND DONALD TRUMP WHO ALSO ONCE SAID IT WAS "REALLY GREAT". POST YOUR COMMENTS, OR SEND RUMPOLE A PRIVATE EMAIL AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM

Friday, February 06, 2009

3rd DCA ROUNDUP

Update: We just learned something today. Who is the only President to hold a patent? 

Chief Judge runoff- February 12th, high noon. Judge Ivan Fernandez versus Judge Joel Brown. Details of the vote were faxed seperately to Rumpole last evening by judges Miller and Dennis-Espinosa. 


If it's after Wednesday, and we don't have anything else to do then it's time for 

3RD DCA ROUNDUP!!!!

In Martinez v. State, what is notable is what is absent in the opinion. A defendant filed a post conviction relief motion in January 2005. Nothing happened.  In October 2008, the Defendant filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. The prosecution responded that the judge was ordering the transcript and reviewing the case.  Nothing has since happened. Even the 3rd DCA  Judges have a limit to their patience: 


We ordered a supplemental response,
which now informs us that the judge was transferred out of the criminal division on
January 9, 2009. He evidently left the division without ruling on Martinez’s
motion. We must now await the new judge, who took over the division on January
12, 2009. The matter would then be brought to the new judge’s attention.
We believe four years is enough time to review and rule on a post-conviction
motion,
and therefore issue the writ of mandamus, ordering the circuit court to rule
on this motion forthwith.

Rumpole says:  OK folks, you can't find out who we are, but lets try and find out who the Judge is. He is a male; he just rotated out in January.  First correct answer gets a prize. 

Also let's play another game. Remember "Name That Tune"? For our robed readers out there, please write in: "I can review and rule on a post conviction motion in....." the answer so far is four plus years. 


Here's another game:  For years and years and years now the FLWs have been littered with this opinion (so we've heard): 

Because the trial court denied relief without attaching records, we must
reverse and remand for attachment of records conclusively showing that the
appellant is not entitled to any relief or an evidentiary hearing.


We're now going to start posting the names of Judges who cannot, even after all this time, follow this rule. Maybe public shaming will d0 the trick. 

First winners:
Judge Eig in Jackson v. State.
Judges Julio Jimenez and Mark King Leban in Dunn v. State. 
Judge Soto in Lucien v. State. 

We know that scut/grunt work like reading transcripts and attaching portions of records are not what you signed up for when you became a Judge. That is beneath you. That's for lawyers to do.  You have more important things to do. Joes is closing soon, and there are all those sales going on at Bal Harbour. But unfortunately the 3rd DCA is not going to back down on this, and we're getting tired of reading that same damn opinion over and over again, and think of all the trees you'll save by reducing the size of the FLWs. Why maybe even Al Gore will give you a shout out. 

Be warned robed readers, we're going to sink our teeth into this like a Judge getting a free order of Jumbos at Joes. 

See You in court. 

18 comments:

the anonymouse said...

Not that I like standing uop for all judges, but listing their names is patently unfair. They often are persuaded that the motion is insufficient on its face, and the 3 DCA decides that it wants to see a transript on one issue. The ASA has to locate it (usually from the AG's office) then find the relevant portions and submit it to the Court. Often this is a time consuming effort.

Bottom line: There is no reason to list the name of the judge, as if they had done something wrong or that they were lazy. They made a ruling and the appellate court wanted more information before deciding if the case deserved a hearing. So what?

All the little mice know that. Why does Rumpole not know it , too?

Anonymous said...

Its everyones favorite contestant, Judge Adrien. This is far from the only post-conviction motion that is festering unruled upon by Adrien. About once a month you could count on a calendar full of post-conviction stuff, all of which was reset by the judge for the next month, rinse and repeat. Lets hope Judge Glick doesn't get stuck cleaning up the mess.

What's my prize Rumpole? said...

I'm guessing that the Judge who sat on the Rule 3 for 4 years is none other than Miami's own version of Judge Learned Hand, THE HONORABLE PETER ADRIEN.

Anonymous said...

I put my money on the culprit having the nickname "CAMACHO"

Anonymous said...

I belive that it is Robert James "Harry" Kuntz who filed in Siegel's seat. I guess that means we are trading a Kuntz for a D#%K!!!

Rumpole said...

Anonymouse- I think all the DCAs are very clear about this- when you deny the 3.850 without a hearing YOU MUST attach a portion of the record supporting why. Period. End. Nothing else need be said. That's it. Not open to interpretation. Not open to other possibilities. Finito. There are thousands of these opinions. Enough is a enough. These Judges can spend 5 minutes before hitting the Malls in the afternoon and do their damn job as the DCAs have explained it to them, or step aside and let someone who has the ability to read an opinion and follow it do it for them.

Rumpole said...

The prize goes to the person who PROVES the name of the judge.Ie., they have to email me a case number and the portion of the record that confirms this is the judge. I can't payoff on guesses since I don't know who did it. Although I have my suspicions.

Sherlock Holmes said...

After Rumpole's 2:16 post, it is confirmed--RUMPOLE IS IN FACT JUDGE PETER ADRIEN (CAMACHO). He wants some poor sucker to get a copy of the record to help him with deciding the Rule 3.850 motion.

MYSTERY SOLVED.

Anonymous said...

Updates please:

1) John Lipensky
2) Jon Blecher

I know there's some punk going around the REGJB soliciting appeals telling people he's "the next John Lipensky". Not bloody likely I say!

And has anyone seen Jon Blecher lately?

fake blecher said...

I don't know about the real guy, but I'm fine and around, although I do a lot of probate and bankruptcy lately.

Plus some club promotion on the side. Yo yo yo fake Blecher in the house.

Anonymous said...

Uh, Rump, you don't have to go through all that excerpting the file and stuff. In the link the the 3rd DCA opinion you handily provided on Martinez (and every other appellate opinion) part of the caption is "Lower Tribunal Number". Right under the 3rd DCA's case no. In this case that no is 01-15483. That is our local case number, you plug F0115483 into CJIS, up comes Mr. Martinez's case, assigned to division F012, now listing Stacy Glick as judge, previously of course this was the division of the hero of this little tale, Peter Camacho Adrien. As I responded earlier, first I might add.

Anonymous said...

Did you read the opinion from the 3rd DCA about coke from a distance.

Judge Thomas allowed a guy to go to jail for possession of coke near a school.

One big problem... no coke. They never found any!

The cop said he saw a transaction in his binoculars and it looked like coke.

What the fuck was that judge thinking?

Hey Thomas... I saw what looked like a crystal meth in my telescope so, he must be guilty... even though we never found any drugs.

Anonymous said...

Two the two dip shit's running this blog.

How would you as a chief judge handle the assignment of a newly elected judge that you know is a complete dumb ass? Where do you assign this circuit judge so the damage to the justice system in minimal?

1. Criminal
2. Civil
3. Probate
4. Juvi hall
5. Family
6. Bond hearings

The question is what do you do with unqualified judges?

Anonymous said...

TriviafreakMia wrote:

Abraham Lincoln for a contraption that helps boats float higher in order not to get stuck in sandtraps.

Rumpole said...

To the English major who wrote the comment at 4:12: There are three forms of the word- two (a number) to ( used as an adverb or a preposition and directed toward something. This is the word they taught you in english class that you needed to use as the first word in your stupid comment. ) and too, usually modifying an amount, as in "I get too many morons who write comments on this blog."

See?

Abraham Lincoln is correct, for a device used for ships on the Mississippi.

Anonymous said...

Rumpole, my dear friend.

"Two [To] the two [2] dip shit's running this blog."

Would this be an admission that 2 dip shit's run the blog, or just 1 dip shit?

Anonymous said...

Rump---I say name all of the judges. After Judge Schwartz started naming trial attorneys in his orders, I have NO sympathy for any of them. Let's see how they like it.

Anonymous said...

and who is the only president to have argued a cast before the Supreme Court?