CHRISTOPHER TANZLER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Anders V. California cases and more on FLexlaw
EN BANC
In this direct appeal from his criminal conviction, Appellant filed a pro se Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion after we permitted him to file an initial brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), but before we permitted counsel to withdraw. Our Clerk, in reliance on Rodriguez v. State, 881 So.2d 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), ordered Appellant’s counsel to show cause why Appellant’s rule 3.800(b)(2) motion should not be stricken because it was not signed by counsel and not timely filed. Having considered Appellant’s response, we permit Appellant to proceed. In doing so, we recede from our decision in Rodriguez.
Since we decided Rodriguez, two of our sister courts have expressed conflict. Lopez v. State, 905 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Proctor v. State, 901 So.2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). We are persuaded by and adopt their reasoning.
PALMER, C.J., GRIFFIN, SAWAYA, ORFINGER, MONACO, LAWSON, EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Collins v. State, 17 So. 3d 790 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…from Rodriguez, and recognized that a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion may be filed while an Anders appeal is pending until the time a defendant is allowed to file a pro se brief and not when the public defender’s Anders brief is filed. See Tanzler v. State, 6 So. 3d 711 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (en banc). .These sentencing issues were not raised in Collins' direct appeal or in his rule 3.850 motion. . Presumably, the trial court was unaware that Collins' rule 3.800(b)(2) motion was untimely and this court denied his r…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Proctor v. State, 901 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Walden v. State, 905 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Rodriguez v. State, 881 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)