JOE LOUIS BALL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1. The court granted the state's motion to quash the appeal after the appellant's counsel withdrew, suggesting the appeal was frivolous, and the appellant failed to file a supporting brief or request new counsel within the allotted time.
The appellate court held that no reversible error was made to appear from the record and affirmed the trial court's order. The appeal was effectively quashed due to its frivolous nature and the appellant's failure to prosecute it.
“no reversible error has been made to appear”
This quote establishes the appellate court's finding that the record did not contain any grounds for overturning the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, Joe Louis Ball, appealed an order denying his motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1. His public defender moved to withdraw,…
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 Rule 1 cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is now before us on motion of the state to quash the pending appeal from an order of the trial court which denied appellant’s motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.
Following the filing herein of a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the appellant, suggesting that in his considered opinion the appeal is without merit and frivolous, this court made an order allowing the appellant 30 days within which to file a brief or memorandum in support of the appeal. The only response thereto was a letter from the ap*591pellant requesting appointment of another attorney to handle his appeal. This court thereafter having given this appeal further consideration, and having concluded from the record that no reversible error has been made to appear, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed.