RICHARD MOORE, 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 decision after the public defender moved to withdraw, concluding the appeal was frivolous. The court followed the procedure outlined in Anders v. California for handling such appeals.
Yes, the appeal is wholly frivolous, the public defender's motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is affirmed.
“we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.”
Establishes the court's finding regarding the merit of the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 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, asserting the appeal was frivolous. The court provided the appe…
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, 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 filed a memorandum brief in support of his position, and on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Where.upon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed upon the authority of Williams v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 29; Belton v. State, Fla.1968, 217 So.2d 97; State v. Youngblood, Fla.1968, 217 So.2d 98; State v. Williams, Fla.1969, 219 So.2d 684.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Executive CAR & Truck Leasing, Inc. v. Alberta DeSERIO, 468 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…testimony regarding the defendant’s competency to stand trial. We do not find Ross controlling in this situation, but note that the court credited a psychologist’s testimony concerning the manifestations of organic brain damage. In Reese v. Naylor, 222 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969), a negligence action in which the plaintiff alleged personal injuries, the court allowed a clinical psychologist to testify, based on psychological testing, to the plaintiff’s mental condition. The testimony apparently concerned…
-
Mark S. Grenitz, M.D. v. Tomlian, 858 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 2003)…onpsychological or medical cause of organic brain damage is a medical judgment. As stated in GIW, a psychologist “may properly give opinion testimony as to an existing mental condition, see Ross v. State, 386 So. 2d 1191 (Fla.1980); Reese v. Naylor, 222 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969), and existing organic brain damage.” 471 So. 2d at 82. However, neither the wording of the statute itself1 nor its legislative history2 supports the proposition that a neuropsychologist is competent to testify regarding medical c…
-
GIW S. Valve Co. v. Smith, 471 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…significant impact upon the outcome of the trial. There is no argument with the proposition that a psychologist may properly give opinion testimony as to an existing mental condition, see Ross v. State, 386 So. 2d 1191 (Fla.1980); Reese v. Naylor, 222 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969), and existing organic brain damage. Executive Car & Truck Leasing, Inc. v. DeSerio, 468 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). However, we have been cited to and have located no authority permitting a psychologist to give expert opinio…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Belton v. State, 217 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1968)
- State v. Youngblood, 217 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 1968)
- Williams v. State, 214 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- State v. Billy George Shively (Deceased) Sylvia B. Shively & Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 219 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1969)