Appellants appealed following their no contest pleas, contending that the trial court erred by denying their motions to withdraw their pleas and motions to dismiss. Both appellants failed to file a timely request for certificate of probable cause, but a late certificate was obtained which was to be “nunc pro tunc” to January 25, 2002, the date of sentencing. The appellate court dismissed the appeals. There was no evidence that appellants’ counsel had agreed to obtain a certificate of probable cause or that appellants made diligent efforts to insure that their attorneys carried out their responsibility. Therefore, the criteria for application of the principle of constructive filing were not present. The lateness of the certificate could not be cured by the “nunc pro tunc” order.