Henfield v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledJuly 8, 2026
Docket2D2026-0190
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
ANGELA D. HENFIELD,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 2D2026-0190
July 8, 2026
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Dana M. Moss,
Judge.
LeNina Denisa Hurdle, Tampa, for Appellant.
No appearance for Appellee.
ORDER FOLLOWING SHOW-CAUSE PROCEEDING
PER CURIAM.
Attorney LeNina Denisa Hurdle, Florida Bar Number 106016,
appeared before this court on Tuesday, April 21, 2026, to show cause
why sanctions should not be imposed for her failure to comply with this
court's orders.
Attorney Hurdle filed the notice of appeal in the trial court on
January 21, 2026, and the notice was transmitted to this court on
January 22. Because no filing fee accompanied the notice, on January
23 this court issued its standard fee order. The order required the
appellant to submit to this court the $300 filing fee or indigency
documentation within twenty days, failing which the appeal would be
subject to dismissal and counsel subject to sanctions. Attorney Hurdle
did not respond.
On March 10, 2026, this court issued an order directing Attorney
Hurdle to respond to the January 23 order or risk the imposition of
sanctions. Attorney Hurdle did not respond.
On April 2, 2026, this court issued an order requiring Attorney
Hurdle to appear at the court's April 21 oral argument session to show
cause why she should not be sanctioned for her failure to respond to the
orders just described. The order advised that if Attorney Hurdle
complied with the order by 1 p.m. on Thursday, April 16, 2026, she
could seek to discharge the order to show cause. Attorney Hurdle did
not take advantage of the purge provision.
Attorney Hurdle appeared before the court on April 21, 2026, and
advised the court that she has been transitioning to a new firm, she
thought another attorney was going to be handling the appeal, the filing
fee had been paid (that morning), and she intended to file a motion to
withdraw. The court directed Attorney Hurdle to file a motion to
withdraw with the clerk's office by 5 p.m. that day. Attorney Hurdle did
so, but the motion was inadequate. On April 24, this court issued an
order denying the motion to withdraw without prejudice and providing
guidance. Attorney Hurdle did not respond.
Due to Attorney Hurdle's failure to comply with this court's
directives and the attendant delays, we hereby refer this matter to The
2
Florida Bar for investigation and initiation of such proceedings as may be
appropriate.
SLEET, ATKINSON, and GUARD, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
3