BOBBY LEE DANIELS, 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.
Bobby Lee Daniels appeals his robbery conviction and sentence. The appellate court addresses procedural requirements for 'Anders' briefs filed by court-appointed counsel in criminal appeals, requiring that notice be served directly on the appellant himself.
Counsel filing an 'Anders' brief in a criminal case must serve a copy of the brief and any motion to withdraw on the appellant by certified mail, return receipt requested, and must certify such service to the court along with the signed return receipt.
[1] Counsel filing an "Anders" brief asserting no meritorious points on appeal must serve a copy of the brief on the appellant by certified mail, return receipt requested.
[2] When an "Anders" brief is filed, counsel must certify service of the brief and the signed return receipt to the court.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“appellant is unaware that his counsel on appeal is not urging nor even suggesting a specific ground for reversal. He, appellant, is in no different position, it seems to us, than one whose counsel is seeking leave to withdraw because he believes the appeal to be non-meritorious.”
Establishes the court's reasoning that notice is required to ensure the appellant knows his counsel believes the appeal is non-meritorious.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDaniels was convicted of robbery and sentenced. His court-appointed appellate counsel filed an 'Anders' brief asserting no meritorious points exist fo…
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 Brief Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant directly appeals his conviction and sentence for the crime of' robbery. *406His court-appointed counsel has filed what is commonly known as an “Anders” brief,1 i. e., one in which he asserts that there are no arguable or meritorious points to be found in and from the record herein. Although he has filed such a brief counsel has not, as has been the classic case, moved to withdraw.
From the certificate of service endorsed in the brief it appears that appellant’s counsel served only the Attorney General with a copy of said brief, and therefore that no copy was certified as having been served on the defendant himself. So at this point, for ought that appears, the appellant is unaware that his counsel on appeal is not urging nor even suggesting a specific ground for reversal. He, appellant, is in no different position, it seems to us, than one whose counsel is seeking leave to withdraw because he believes the appeal to be non-meritorious. In the latter case notice to the appellant is required,2 and we think it comports with fairness and expediency to require such notice in a case such as that before us.
Accordingly, counsel for an appellant in a criminal case who files an “Anders” brief, whether he also seeks to withdraw or not, must serve a copy of the brief and his motion to withdraw, if filed, on the appellant and do so by certified mail, return receipt requested. Thereafter, he should certify service of the foregoing documents to this court and file therewith the aforesaid signed return receipt. At that point, the administrative processes of this court will afford appellant appropriate time to seek additional counsel, if the exigencies of the case then require, and/or to file his own brief raising therein such grounds of appeal or making such argument as he may feel advised.
In view hereof we hereby continue further deliberation of, or inquiry into, the merits of this appeal; and counsel for appellant is hereby directed to comply with the requirements set forth above on or before fifteen days from the date of this order unless additional time, upon good cause shown, is granted.
It is so ordered.
HOBSON, C. J., and LILES and Mc-NULTY, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hooks v. State, 253 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1971)…2d pp. 498-499). The principles enunciated in Anders v. California, supra, have been applied by the District Court of Appeal. Schuler v. State, 229 So. 2d 667 (Fla.App.1st, 1969); Leone v. State, 233 So. 2d 404 (Fla.App.2d, 1970); Daniels v. State, 233 So. 2d 405 (Fla.App. 2d, 1970). Under our appellate procedure the District Court of Appeal grants a full appeal and considers every phase of the record. This is the first appeal within the concept of Anders v. California, supra. On the other hand, the jurisdi…
-
Franklin v. State, 252 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Leone v. State, Fla.App. 1970, 233 So. 2d 404; Daniels v. State, Fla.App.1970, 233 So. 2d 405. PIERCE, C. J., and LILES and MANN, JJ., concur.…
-
Stacy v. State, 237 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…appellant would have thirty days from receipt of said order in which to file his brief or bring to this court’s attention any matter he wished this court to consider. See Leone v. State, Fla.App.1970, 233 So. 2d 404; Daniels v. State, Fla.App.1970, 233 So. 2d 405. Appellant’s attorney has certified to this court that a copy of the brief has been furnished to appellant but he did not certify that a copy of this court’s order allowing [*190] appellant thirty days within which to file his own brief had been se…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- McNEALY v. State, 183 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Williams v. State, 186 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Sammie Earl Walker v. State, 220 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)