EMMETT GANTT, 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 Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the summary grant of the public defender's motion to withdraw from representing Gantt in a post-conviction appeal, clarifying that the Anders procedure is not required in post-conviction relief cases where the right to appointed counsel derives from due process considerations rather than the Sixth Amendment.
The Anders procedure is not required for withdrawal in post-conviction relief appeals because the right to appointed counsel in such cases stems from due process considerations, not the Sixth Amendment. It is sufficient that counsel file a motion to withdraw and the appellant be given the opportunity to file a pro se brief.
[1] Anders v. …
[2] Where counsel is appointed in post-conviction matters based on due process, withdrawal requires only a motion to withdraw and an opportunity for the appellant to file a p…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Anders requires that before counsel can withdraw from appellate representation of an indigent defendant, he or she must file a brief detailing the proceedings below and discussing why no arguable issues of reversible error can be raised on appeal.”
Explains the standard Anders procedure for direct appeals
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGantt sought post-conviction relief through a motion to correct his sentence. The public defender moved to withdraw as counsel. The appellate court ga…
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 Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We grant the public defender’s motion to withdraw as counsel for appellant and summarily affirm the order denying appellant’s motion to correct his sentence. We write this opinion to make it clear that it is not necessary for court appointed counsel to follow the procedure set forth in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), before seeking to withdraw from appeals of orders denying post-conviction relief.
Anders requires that before counsel can withdraw from appellate representation of an indigent defendant, he or she must file a brief detailing the proceedings below and discussing why no arguable issues of reversible error can be raised on appeal. Once such a brief is filed, a three judge panel conducts an independent review of the entire record on appeal. That exacting review is required to preserve the indigent defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel on direct appeal.
An indigent prisoner may be entitled to counsel to handle post-conviction matters such as appeals from orders denying relief under rules 3.800(a) or 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, but the authority for such appointments stems not from the Sixth Amendment, but from due process considerations. There is no right to counsel in such cases, but the court has discretion to make an appointment. See Schneelock v. State, 665 So. 2d 1063, 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), rev. denied, 672 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1996); Graham v. State, 372 So. 2d 1363, 1365-66 (Fla.1979).
In Ostrum v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 663 So. 2d 1359, 1361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), this court held that Anders procedures need not be followed where the right to counsel stems from due process considerations. Where counsel seeks to withdraw from an appointment made where there is no mandatory requirement for appointment of counsel, it is enough that a motion to withdraw be filed and that the appellant be afforded the opportunity to file a pro se brief.
We also take this opportunity to remind the trial court that the Criminal Appeals Reform Act, Chapter 924, Florida Statutes (1997), limits the court’s power of appointment of appellate attorneys in post-conviction matters. See § 924.051(9). Appointment is not a matter of right. Courts should apply the standards enunciated in Graham to determine whether the appointment of appellate counsel is required. See 372 So. 2d at 1366. In a case such as this, where no issues are present, let alone a complex one, counsel should not have been appointed.
In this case we gave appellant time to file his own initial brief. Having received no response from the appellant, we grant the motion for leave to withdraw and summarily affirm the order denying the motion to correct sentence.
WARNER, FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pullen v. State, 802 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 2001)…rmination of parental rights); Jimenez v. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 669 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (same); In re J.A., 693 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (same); In re K.W., 779 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (same); Gantt v. State, 714 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (noncapital postconviction proceeding where court exercised discretion to appoint public defender); Pullen v. State, 764 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (involuntary civil commitment). Other states that have addressed the applica…
-
Rowe v. State, 777 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…, resources, or employees of this state or its political subdivisions may not be used, directly or indirectly, in appellate or collateral proceedings unless the use is constitutionally or statutorily mandated.” The Fourth District in Gantt v. State, 714 So. 2d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), pointed to this provision in its admonition to trial courts when considering appointment of counsel in appeals involving collateral attacks on judgments or sentences. “Appointment of counsel in these proceedings is not a m…1 / 2
-
Beliveau v. State, 144 So. 3d 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…on proceedings is not a matter of right. When deciding whether to appoint postconviction appellate counsel, trial courts should be guided by the due process considerations described in Graham v. State, 372 So. 2d 1363 (Fla.1979). See Gantt v. State, 714 So. 2d 1116,1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). We also use this case as an opportunity to announce a change in procedure affecting the handling of postconviction appeals when appointed appellate counsel can find no arguable issue to brief. This court has been permittin…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- The Petition of Andrew A. Graham v. State, 372 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1979)
- Ostrum v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. of the State of Fla., 663 So. 2d 1359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Schneelock v. State, 665 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)