Simon Kwong

Legal Practice Workshop

8/23/15

Case Briefs
Lester Von Milton TYLER, Petitioner v. STATE of Florida, Respondent
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
No. 4-86-3127
1987
1. Facts:
Petitioners conviction for first degree murder and armed robbery was affirmed by court in
1980
Trial court denied defense counsels timely motion for jury sequestration
Defense counsel failed to argue that trial court erred in denying this motion
Petition seeking writ of habeas corpus filed alleging ineffectiveness of appellate counsel
2. Issue: Should petition for writ of habeas corpus be granted due to alleged ineffectiveness of
appellate counsel?
3. Holding: (Vote: 3-0) Yes, the petitioners appellate counsel committed a fundamental error in
failing to argue that the trial court erred by refusing to sequester the jury during deliberation in a
capital trial.
4. Rule of Law: In a capital trial, the failure of appellate counsel to argue the error of a trial
courts refusal of jury sequestration during deliberation warrants granting a writ of habeas
corpus.
5. Majority Opinion Reasoning: Precedent has established that a trial courts refusal to
sequester a jury during deliberation is a reversible error in both capital and non-capital cases.
Therefore, petitioners write should be granted.
6. Dissenting Opinion(s) Reasoning: N/A
7. Dicta: Johnson v. Wainwright, 498 So.2d 938 (Fla. 1986) requires granting this petition
despite the difficulties a new trial ten years after petitioners initial arrest will present to the state.

Simon Kwong
Legal Practice Workshop
8/23/15

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesus AVENDANO-CAMACHO, DefendantAppellant

U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
No. 85-5141
1986
1. Facts:
Defendant convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin and aiding and abetting
the distribution of heroin in District Court
Appellant attempts to file notice of appeal, which was rejected as untimely
Appellate procedure rule permits the Government 30 days in which to file appeal, while
providing defendant only ten days to file appeal
Defendant appeals order denying his request for extension of time to file notice of appeal,
citing unequal protection of the laws and incompetency of trial counsel
2. Issues:
A. Does an appellate procedure rule that permits the Government 30 days in which to file an
appeal, while providing individual defendant only ten days to file an appeal deny that
defendant equal protection of the laws?
B. Does an untimely filing of a notice of appeal resulting from attorney incompetence warrant
an extension of time due to excusable neglect?
3. Holding:
A. (Vote: 3-0) No, different periods provided the government and criminal defendants for filing
an appeal do not deny defendant the equal protection of the laws because it is reasonable
to assume a large, bureaucratic organization such as the government requires a greater
amount of time to assess merits of an appeal.
B. N/A - Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to hear appeal since defendant missed initial ten
day filing period as well as thirty additional days provided for seeking an extension of time
due to excusable neglect.
4. Rule of Law:
The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth amendment does not apply to federal
enactments, however, equal protection claims may be brought under the due process clause of
the Fifth Amendment in the same manner.
Classifications challenged as denying equal protection of the laws are generally sustained if
they rationally further a legitimate governmental interest. Only if a classification operates to the
peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class or interferes with a fundamental right will it be
subjected to scrutiny. The rational relation test can be used to judge potential inequities in
classification.
5. Majority Opinion Reasoning: By the rational relation test, the court finds that different
periods of time provided the government and criminal defendant for filing an appeal do not result
in unequal protection of the laws. A large, bureaucratic entity, such as the government, is
responsible for prosecuting thousands of cases across the country and must be concerned with
the consistency of its positions, as well as the future impact of the case, while the defendant

Simon Kwong
Legal Practice Workshop
8/23/15
does not have such responsibilities. Precedent has also established that the right to appeal is
not a fundamental right.
6. Dissenting Opinion(s) Reasoning: N/A
7. Dicta: Attorney neglect does not constitute a basis for granting a thirty day extension of time
due to excusable neglect.