TONY RAY PALEN, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court quashed a Fifth District Court of Appeal decision that treated a minor sentencing issue (assessment of court costs without notice) as a meritorious appellate issue, preventing the use of the Anders procedure. The Court held that indigent appellants on their first appeal as of right should not lose Anders rights simply because counsel identifies relatively minor sentencing issues.
Minor sentencing issues do not preclude the use of the Anders procedure for indigent appellants on their first appeal as of right. Counsel's identification of relatively minor sentencing issues in 'no merit' briefs should not deprive indigents of their Anders rights.
[1] An indigent defendant appealing as of right should not lose Anders rights simply because counsel identifies relatively minor sentencing issues in a 'no merit' brief.
[2] A court should not follow the Anders procedure when counsel identifies a meritorious issue that could be presented on behalf of a defendant.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“that indigents in their first appeal as of right should not lose their Anders rights simply because counsel are able to identify some relatively minor sentencing issues in 'no merit' briefs.”
Establishes the controlling rule that minor sentencing issues do not preclude Anders procedure
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTony Ray Palen entered into a negotiated plea and pleaded nolo contendere to various criminal charges. He filed a timely notice of appeal and a public…
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 Brief Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKETT, Justice.
We review Palen v. State, 574 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), based on direct and express conflict with Coupe v. State, 564 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), approved as modified sub nom. In re Appellate Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla.1991).* We quash the decision below.
Tony Ray Palen entered into a negotiated plea in which he pled nolo contendere to various criminal charges. He filed a timely notice of appeal and a public defender was appointed to represent him. The appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and submitted a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that there was no meritorious issue which could be presented on behalf of Palen. However, counsel noted that Palen apparently had been assessed court costs without notice or an opportunity to object, in violation of law. The Fifth District in Palen deemed this a meritorious issue that would preclude the Anders procedure, disagreeing with Coupe which held that the Anders procedure should still be followed where minor issues such as costs are raised.
We recently disapproved Palen in In re Appellate Court Response to Anders Briefs, where we held “that indigents in their first appeal as of right should not lose their Anders rights simply because counsel are able to identify some relatively minor sentencing issues in ‘no merit’ briefs.” 581 So. 2d at 152.
Accordingly, we quash the decision below and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. *
We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Meier v. State, 912 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…part; court facility fee and public defender fee stricken. WHATLEY and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). . Cost issues are properly included in an Anders brief. See Palen v. State, 588 So. 2d 974, 974-75 (Fla.1991); In re Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149, 152 (Fla.1991). . See art. I, §§ 34-4. and 54-1, Pasco County, Fla., Code of Ordinances (1994). . See art. I, § 34-7, Pasco County, Fla., Code of Ordinances (1994).…
-
Lambert v. State, 912 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…on him by the trial court. He preserved these minor sentencing issues by filing a motion to correct sentencing errors pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). Cost issues are properly addressed in an Anders brief. Palen v. State, 588 So. 2d 974, 974-75 (Fla.1991); In re Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149, 152 (Fla.1991). We affirm Mr. Lambert’s conviction without further discussion and strike one cost. $2 Criminal Justice Education Fund Fee Mr. Lambert claims that the $2 criminal justice educ…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- In re App. Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1991)
- Coupe v. State, 564 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Palen v. State, 574 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)