MAURICE HENRY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
MAURICE HENRY, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
158 So. 3d 752
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2015)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
This court’s independent review of the record and pertinent legal authority, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and In re Anders Briefs, 581 So.2d 149 (Fla.1991), reveals no meritorious point which might support reversal of the conviction and sentence. We commend An-ders counsel for his brief on Appellant’s behalf, which examined points of possible merit to assist in this court’s review. The brief demonstrates a thorough review of the record and meticulous application of the law governing the trial proceedings, including citations to the record and to legal authorities.
AFFIRMED.
PADOVANO, WETHERELL, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. Taylor, 177 So. 3d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…that amount is not disputed. The trial court also reasonably concluded that the Wife’s income was likely to increase in the future, but there is no evidence or finding concerning any increase in income in the foreseeable future. See Purin v. Purin, 158 So. 3d 752, 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (“Generally, ‘trial courts may not consider future or anticipated events in setting current alimony ... due to the lack of an evidentiary basis or the uncertainty surrounding such future events.’” (quoting Nelson v. Nelson, 6…
-
Hedden v. Hedden, 240 So. 3d 148 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…16). According to the statutory language in section 61.08(7), a court cannot award durational alimony if permanent alimony is appropriate; however, section 61.08(1) and case law allow the trial courts to award both if justified. See Purin v. Purin , 158 So. 3d 752, 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (suggesting that on remand the trial court should award both durational and permanent periodic alimony to minimize the need for future litigation should the wife's needs exceed her actual rather than earning ability after the…
-
Solomon v. Solomon, 221 So. 3d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…producing evidence sufficient to meet the standard set forth in section 61.13001(8), and not merely by a promise to. do better. A court may not consider potential future, or even anticipated, events as a substitute for evidence. See Purin v. Purin, 158 So. 3d 752, 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (quoting Nelson v. Nelson, 651 So. 2d 1252, 1254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)). As the wife argues, the trial court in this case essentially-relieved the husband of meeting his burden of proof altogether because it denied the motion f…
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)