JIMMIE BOWENS, 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 court affirmed Bowens' conviction for marijuana sale, finding the evidence abundant to support the jury's guilty verdict despite appointed counsel's request to withdraw under Anders v. California.
The evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for sale of narcotic drugs (marijuana).
[1] When appointed counsel concludes evidence is abundant to support conviction, the court may grant counsel's request to withdraw under Anders v. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJimmie Bowens was charged with the sale of marijuana in Lee County Court of Record. A jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to ten years impriso…
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 Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Jimmie Bowens was informed against in the Court of Record for Lee County charged with the sale of narcotic drugs, to-wit: marijuana. Upon trial by a jury he was found guilty as charged and, upon being accordingly adjudged guilty by the Court, he was sentenced to ten years imprisonment in the State Prison. Upon denial of motion for new trial duly filed, he has taken a direct appeal to this Court. His assignments of error raised substantially only the question as to sufficiency of the evidence to convict.
In the brief filed in this Court in his behalf by Court-appointed counsel, it is stated that “the evidence appears to be abundant for a jury to have reached the conclusion that the Appellant was guilty of the crime charged”, and that for such reason counsel “requests that he be allowed to withdraw as Attorney of Record”, citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493. After said brief was filed, this Court on July 20, 1971 entered order granting Bowens thirty days therefrom within which to file an additional brief in his own behalf as he might be advised. No such further brief has been filed.
Notwithstanding, we have carefully considered and examined the entire record filed here and find it abundantly sufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction entered. Accordingly, the judgment appealed is—
Affirmed.
HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.