DANIEL LOPEZ MORALES, 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 lower court's judgment after the public defender moved to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, finding the appeal to be wholly frivolous after the appellant failed to respond to the court's invitation to raise points in support of his appeal.
Yes, the appeal is wholly frivolous, and the public defender's motion to withdraw is granted, with the order of judgment affirmed.
“This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 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.”
This quote describes the procedural steps taken by the court and the appellant's failure to respond, leading to the conclusion that the appeal is frivolous.
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 the indigent defendant-appellant. The court followed the procedure outlined in Anders v. Californ…
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 Anders V. California Procedure 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. California, 386 U.S. 738, 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 of judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dorman K. Kimbrell, Jr. v. Paige, 448 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1984)…tute gives the carrier the right to institute an action against the third-party tortfeasor if the employee does not institute an action during the first year after the accrual of the cause of action. § 440.39(4)(a); Jersey Insurance Co. v. Cuttriss, 220 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). If the employee does not bring suit within the first year, the insurance carrier can file suit after giving the required thirty-day notice to the employee (or his dependents) and the employee’s attorney. § 440.39(4)(a). It is cle…
-
The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Bortz, 271 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1972)…the trial court entered an order allowing Bortz to substitute counsel, but retaining Aetna as a party plaintiff. This provoked a motion for rehearing by Aetna, based on Fla.Stat. § 440.39(4) (a), F.S.A., and Jersey Ins. Co. of New York v. Cuttriss, 220 So. 2d 15 (3rd D.C.A.Fla.1969), a case holding that while suit rights were concurrent in the second year, the right to proceed was limited to the one filing a cause of action first. In response, the trial court reaffirmed its order. After the case had procee…
-
Md. Cas. Co. v. Smith, 272 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1973)…ent. Since the language of (4) (a) stresses “may”, it is assumed that the Legislature intended that the rights of the employer and employee are concurrent in the second year until one or the other acts first. Jersey Ins. Co. of New York v. Cuttriss, 220 So. 2d 15 (3rd D.C.A.Fla.1969); Home Indemnity Co. v. McAdams, 139 So. 2d 433 (3rd D.C.A.Fla.1962); Zurich Ins. Co. v. Renton, 189 So. 2d 492 (2nd D.C.A.Fla.1966). If the employer fails to act in the second year, subsection' (4) (b) provides that equitable di…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)