MATTHEW MACK WILLIAMS, 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, appointed to represent an indigent appellant, moved to withdraw, asserting the appeal was frivolous. 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 lower court's 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, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.Zd 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 explains 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, appointed to represent an indigent appellant, filed a motion to withdraw, stating the appeal was frivolous. The court allowed the…
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, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.Zd 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.
ON REHEARING
The appellant has filed a “Motion of Inquiry” which we have treated as a petition for rehearing addressed to our opinion filed in this cause on September 30, 1969. We have carefully considered appellant’s petition and his brief and have concluded that we were correct in holding that appellant’s appeal was wholly frivolous. Our opinion heretofore filed is therefore adhered to.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant has filed a “Motion of Inquiry” which we have treated as a petition for rehearing addressed to our opinion filed in this cause on September 30, 1969. We have carefully considered appellant’s petition and his brief and have concluded that we were correct in holding that appellant’s appeal was wholly frivolous. Our opinion heretofore filed is therefore adhered to.