URBAN THEREON JONES, 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.
This case involves an indigent defendant's appeal where the public defender moved to withdraw, arguing the appeal was frivolous. The court followed the Anders v. California procedure, allowing the defendant time to respond, which he failed to do. The court granted the withdrawal motion and affirmed the lower court's decision.
The court granted the public defender's motion to withdraw and affirmed the order or judgment appealed, finding the appeal to be wholly frivolous.
“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 a 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 failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.”
Establishes the procedural steps taken by the court and the basis for its conclusion.
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, representing an indigent defendant-appellant, filed a motion to withdraw, asserting the appeal was frivolous. The court provided …
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 a 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 failed to respond 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
-
Conner v. Atlas Aircraft Corp., 310 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…o the jury verdict. The jury’s finding will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that the trial court committed error or that the evidence [*354] demonstrates that the conclusions reached are erroneous. Brainard v. Poole, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 510. As in the case sub judice, where a tenant has been wrongfully evicted by his landlord, he may recover general damages and in addition thereto, compensation for loss resulting from injury to his business including loss of profits. Young v. Cobbs, F…
-
Klingshirn Corp. OF Fla., Inc. v. Turk, 334 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…by the trial court has been made to appear. See, e. g., Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Colposcope of America, Inc., Fla. App. 1975, 308 So. 2d 52; Causeway Marina, Inc. v. Mandel, Fla.App. 1973, 276 So. 2d 71; Brainard v. Poole, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 510; Land v. Patroni, Fla.App. 1968, 214 So. 2d 94; and 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals §§ 316 and 346. We have considered the record, all points in the briefs, and arguments of counsel in light of the controlling principles of law and have concluded that no error…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)