GREGORY DONALD HAUSER, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 court granted certiorari and quashed the circuit court's affirmance because the court violated procedural due process by denying the petitioner an opportunity to file a pro se brief after his counsel filed an Anders brief.
A circuit court must provide an indigent defendant a reasonable opportunity to file a pro se brief after counsel files an Anders brief, and failure to do so violates procedural due process.
[1] An indigent defendant must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to file a pro se brief after counsel files an Anders no-merit brief, and denial of this opportunity violat…
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“Upon counsel's submission of ... an Anders brief, the indigent must be given the opportunity to file a pro se brief.”
Florida Supreme Court's statement of the requirement that indigent defendants receive opportunity to file pro se briefs after Anders briefs are filed.
Gregory Donald Hauser appealed his misdemeanor battery conviction. His court-appointed counsel filed a no-merit Anders brief, but the circuit court is…
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 Misdemeanor Battery cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner Gregory Donald Hauser seeks certiorari review of the circuit court’s appellate per curiam affirmance of his appeal of his judgment and sentence for misdemeanor battery. The circuit court deprived Mr. Hauser of his right to file a pro se brief by issuing its decision only seven days after Mr. Hauser’s court-appointed counsel filed a no-merit brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), which provides that “[a] copy of counsel’s brief should be furnished the indigent and time allowed him to raise any points that he chooses.” See also In re Anders Briefs, 581 So.2d 149, 151 (Fla. 1991) (“Upon counsel’s submission of ... an Anders brief, the indigent must be given the opportunity to file a pro se brief.”). The State has appropriately conceded that the circuit court failed to provide Mr. Hau-ser with procedural due process and thereby violated “a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So.2d 885, 889 (Fla.2003) (citing Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So.2d 679, 682 (Fla.2000); then citing Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 528 (Fla.1995)).
Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari, quash the circuit court’s order, and remand for the circuit court to give Mr. Hauser an opportunity to file a pro se brief within no fewer than twenty days of the date that the mandate issues in this proceeding.
Petition granted; opinion quashed; remanded.
SILBERMAN, WALLACE, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Leila Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Keely Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2003)
- Farren Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2000)
- In re App. Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1991)