JULIUS SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the errors noted were not properly preserved for appeal, and finding no other reversible error, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
This case was before the court for a second review following directions for more thorough briefs under Anders v. California. Both parties submitted co…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Anders V. California cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case is again before us for review pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We previously directed the public defender and the state to file additional briefs which more fully comply with that decision. Smith v. State, 496 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Both parties have now complied with our directions. We especially compliment the public defender on the thoroughness of his brief on behalf of appellant, for it has facilitated thorough and efficient review by the court with a considerable savings in time.1 The state’s brief has likewise presented helpful argument in response which has simplified our task.
After careful review of the substituted briefs filed on behalf of appellant and by the state, we conclude that the errors noted in the designation were, for the most part, not properly preserved for appeal. Accordingly, finding no other reversible error in the judicial acts of the trial court, the judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.
SMITH, SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur. . The public defender’s brief addresses each judicial act designated by trial counsel for purposes of preparing the record, but expresses concern that this court not equate those designations with assignments of error which have been abolished. It was not our intention to do so in the prior opinion. Rather, such designations are the starting point for appellate counsel in Anders cases in reviewing potential errors that may warrant discussion. Each designation need not necessarily be made a separate point on appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brandt Robinson v. Stewart, 161 So. 3d 589 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…tim the order of the trial court. Id. at 143. A Westlaw search indicates the decision in Turlington has been cited in an appellate decision only once-by this court in a citation per curiam affirmance without opinion. See Petersen v. Dep't of Educ., 508 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Appellees argue that subsection 8, like the statutory provisions at issue in Turlington, " 'confers permissible administrative discretion' " on the State Board of Education " 'to administer new and innovative programs,' ” witho…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Smith v. State, 496 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)