JOHN LEWIS GRIFFITH, 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 court affirmed a conviction after determining the appeal was frivolous, following the procedure outlined in Anders v. California for appointed counsel seeking to withdraw.
Yes, the appeal is wholly frivolous, the public defender's motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is affirmed.
“this court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. State of California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with copy of the public defender's memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having filed his response thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.”
Describes the procedural steps taken by the court to comply with Anders v. California and the court's conclusion regarding the appeal's merit.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe public defender moved to withdraw as counsel for an indigent defendant-appellant, asserting the appeal was frivolous. The court followed the Ander…
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 Frivolous Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme ¡Court of the United States in Anders v. State of California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having filed his response thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Ryan v. State, 457 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…the jury not to set appellant free into the community; not only because she’s a liar but because she’s rich and will thumb her nose at “small Martin County.” These comments are very similar to the prosecu-torial comments condemned in Davis v. State, 214 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Arguments which beseech the jury to convict a defendant for any reason except guilt are highly prejudicial and are strongly discouraged. 2) Personal Attacks on Defense Counsel Aside from referring to Mr. Lazzara as a fancy atto…
-
Wingate v. State, 232 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…several decisions which reversed due to remarks similar to the one objected to herein. Grant v. State, Fla.1967, 194 So. 2d 612; Stewart v. State, Fla.1951, 51 So. 2d 494; Chavez v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So. 2d 750; Davis v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 41. It is our belief that, when examined in its total context, the closing argument in the case sub judice is not so prejudicial or inflammatory as to require reversal. Our holding here should not be construed as receding from prior holdings which adm…1 / 2
-
Chavez v. State, 215 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…ed, according to Mr. Justice Terrell, “ * * * so many times * * * that the law against it would seem to be so commonplace that any lay [*751] man would be familiar with and observe it.” Stewart v. State, 51 So. 2d 494 (Fla.1951). See Davis v. State, 214 So. 2d 41, 3rd D.C.A., Opinion filed September 24, 1968. In Mr. Justice Drew’s opinion in Grant v. State, 194 So. 2d 612 (Fla.1967), which cites amply the authorities we otherwise might, he drew an apt analogy to the prosecutor’s performance in this case: “M…
Previewing 3 of 12 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)