MILIADES PEGUERO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
SHARP, W., J., dissenting, with opinion.
dissenting.
This is an Anders case.1 In my view, appellant has stated a potentially meritorious defense to his conviction and sentence — that he was forced to accept a plea to two cases (02-118 and 02-3804) or proceed to trial at a time when his trial counsel was not prepared because he had just been assigned the second case (02-3804), which the state intended to use at the trial in case number 02-1118. Thus the trial court may have abused its discretion by denying a continuance or the appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea. I would order appellant’s counsel to file a merit brief addressing that issue, and have this case proceed as a non-Anders case.
. 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
Cited By
-
Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Revoredo, 955 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…he merits, we do not think that the circumstances of this case, in which the court considered improper MERS's perhaps disingenuous attempt to claim the status of a conventional "actual” mortgagee, would justify such a ruling. See Cromer v. Mullally, 861 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). . Despite the existence of ambiguous language in the Second District opinion as to whether MERS was the “owner and holder of the note and the mortgage” in question, see Azize,-So. 2d at-[32 Fla. L. Weekly at D547], we apply the…
-
Upland Dev. OF Cent. Fla., Inc. v. Whittaker Lloyd Bridge, 910 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…cker, 698 So. 2d at 652. Thus, a hearing on a motion to strike a pleading as sham is not for the purpose of trying the issues, but rather [*945] serves the purpose of determining whether there are any genuine issues to be tried. Cromer v. Mullally, 861 So. 2d 523, 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Res judicata is an affirmative defense that may not be raised by motion to dismiss because it requires pleading and proof. Glass v. Armstrong, 330 So. 2d 57, 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); see also Swinney v. City of Tampa, 707 So.…
-
Herranz v. Siam, 2 So. 3d 1105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…Only after holding an evidentiary hearing may the trial court “strike the pleading as a sham if it finds that the falsity of the pleading clearly and indisputably appears.” Pacheco, 701 So. 2d at 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). See also Cromer v. Mullally, 861 So. 2d 523, 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“A pleading is only considered a sham when it is inherently false and clearly known to be false at the time the pleading was made.”). As testimony must be taken, notice of the required evidentiary hearing must be provided t…
Previewing 3 of 8 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)