JOSEPH RICE, APPELLANT,
v.
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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court's order after the public defender moved to withdraw as counsel for the indigent appellant, deeming the appeal frivolous. The court followed the Anders v. California procedure, allowing the appellant time to respond, which he failed to do.
Yes, the appeal is wholly frivolous, counsel is permitted to withdraw, 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.”
Describes the procedural steps taken by the court following the public defender's motion to withdraw 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, asserting the appeal was frivolous. The court followed the proc…
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.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 (20 total)
-
Sias v. State, 416 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…te, 117 So. 2d 473 (Fla.1960); Knox v. State, 361 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Davis v. State, 276 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), aff’d, State v. Davis, 290 So. 2d 30 (Fla.1974); Reyes v. State, 253 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); Green v. State, 228 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). Concededly, the record in the present case reflects that more time was spent and evidence presented on the collateral crime. However, this disproportion did not come about because the State went too far in presenting its evidence…
-
Marion v. State, 287 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…unobjected to evidence of defendant’s involvement in a collateral crime does not, under the circumstances of this case, fall within the “fundamental error” doctrine. But see Davis v. State, Fla.App.1973, 276 So. 2d 846; Green v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So. 2d 397. Accordingly, the complained of evidence not having been objected to below or otherwise preserved, further review by an appellate court is precluded.1 Although we must reject defendant’s contentions and affirm the decision of the trial court on tho…1 / 2
-
State v. Cullen Davis, 290 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1974)…McCAIN, JJ., concur. ROBERTS, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., dissent. . 130 So. 2d 605 (Fla.1961). . 84 So. 2d 317 (Fla.1956). . 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959). . 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). . Id. at 848-849. (Emphasis supplied.) . 228 So. 2d 397 (Fla.App.2d 1969). . See note 1, supra. . 130 So. 2d at 610. . See note 2, supra. . 84 So. 2d at 320. . See note 4, supra. . 386 U.S. at 744-745, 87 S.Ct. at 1401 (Emphasis supplied.) . Tracey and Redditt are, of course, but two representativ…
Previewing 3 of 20 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)