THOMAS JEFFERSON JACKSON, 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 order after the public defender moved to withdraw as counsel for the indigent appellant, finding the appeal to be wholly frivolous. The court followed the procedure outlined in Anders v. California, giving the appellant an opportunity to raise points in support of his appeal, which he failed to do.
Yes, the appeal is wholly frivolous, and the lower court's order is 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, 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.”
This quote outlines the procedural steps taken by the court and the basis for its 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 deferred ruling on the motion and provided the appell…
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. 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
-
Centennial Ins. Co. v. Wallace, 330 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…h truck was uninsured and to grant summary judgment. This point has merit. In interpreting an automobile insurance policy the courts have followed the definitions given in the policy itself. Dorrell v. State Fire and Casualty Company, Fla.App.1969, 221 So. 2d 5 and cases cited therein. Appellant’s policy excludes from the definition of an uninsured vehicle “an automobile which is owned by a self-insurer within the meaning of any motor vehicle financial responsibility law . . . ,” and all parties concede th…
-
Standard Marine Ins. Co. v. Allyn, 333 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…). . Davis v. United Fidel. & G. Co. of Baltimore, Md., 172 So. 2d 485 (Fla.App. 1st 1965). See also Standard Accident Insurance Company v. Gavin, 184 So. 2d 229, 24 A.L.R.3d 1359, (Fla.App. 1st 1966). . Dorrell v. State Fire and Casualty Company, 221 So. 2d 5 (Fla.App. 3rd 1969). . Valdes v. Prudence Mutual Casualty Company, 207 So. 2d 312 (Fla.App. 3rd 1968).…
-
Clough v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 636 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…1992). The exclusion at issue does not mention motorcycles but rather refers to uninsured “autos.” No definition of “autos” as encompassing motorcycles or other two wheel vehicles appears in the policy. Compare Dorrell v. State Fire & Casualty Co., 221 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) (defining automobile to mean “a land motor vehicle”). In Valdes v. Prudence Mut. Casualty Co., 207 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), the Third District ruled that the word “automobile” in an “occupying an automobile other than an ins…
Previewing 3 of 8 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)