ANTHONY F. PAYNE, 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.
Court denies counsel's motion to withdraw after filing an Anders brief, establishing that counsel must remain available for potential supplemental briefing if the court identifies reversible issues.
Counsel who files an Anders brief on behalf of an indigent appellant may not withdraw from representation and must remain available if the court determines supplemental briefing is necessary.
[1] When an attorney files an Anders brief on behalf of an indigent appellant, counsel must remain available for representation and may not withdraw, as the court may require…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“To allow counsel to withdraw would require the court to reappoint the attorney to represent appellant if supplemental briefing is required. Such a procedure would result in an unnecessary additional delay.”
Court's explanation for denying the motion to withdraw and requiring counsel to remain available.
Counsel for appellant filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw from representation in a criminal appeal.…
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 Pro Se Brief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Counsel for appellant has filed an An-ders 1 brief on behalf of his client and now moves to withdraw from representation. We deny the motion to withdraw.
We write to suggest the following procedure is proper when an attorney files an Anders brief on behalf of a client. With the filing of the Anders brief, counsel for appellant should file a separate motion seeking leave for the client to file a brief in proper person. Ordinarily, that motion will be granted. After briefing is complete the court has the responsibility to review the Anders brief, pro se brief, the answer brief and record on appeal to determine if there are any issues present which may support reversal. If the court determines that supplemental briefing is required, Anders requires that indigent appellants be afforded the assistance of counsel. State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla.1987). To allow counsel to withdraw would require the court to reappoint the attorney to represent appellant if supplemental briefing is required. Such a procedure would result in an unnecessary additional delay. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is denied.
JOANOS, C.J., and SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1987)