ARTIS SCARBOROUGH, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Petitioner Scarborough sought a writ of mandamus to compel the District Court of Appeal to provide him with a trial transcript so he could pursue his pending appeal. The Florida Supreme Court discharged the writ because the appellate court had already decided the case before the transcript was provided, but preserved Scarborough's right to seek a belated appeal under Baggett v. Wainwright.
The writ of mandamus is discharged because petitioner received his transcript, although too late to use in his appeal. However, the Court preserved petitioner's right to seek a belated appeal under the Baggett v. Wainwright doctrine.
[1] A court may treat a letter seeking a trial transcript from an insolvent petitioner with a pending appeal and an "Anders Brief" as a petition for writ of mandamus.
[2] A district court's practice of holding in abeyance requests to withdraw by counsel until after examination of proceedings and opportunity for indigent to file additional…
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“Writ of mandamus is, accordingly, discharged but without prejudice to petitioner's right to seek a belated appeal under the doctrine of Baggett v. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 239 (Fla.1969).”
Establishes the Court's disposition: denying the mandamus writ while preserving an alternative remedy for the petitioner.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScarborough filed a letter with the Florida Supreme Court on November 11, 1971, seeking a trial transcript and claiming insolvency. An appeal was pend…
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 Indigent Appeals cases and more on FLexlaw
On November 11, 1971, petitioner filed a letter with this Court seeking a transcript of his trial. He stated that he was insolvent; that an appeal was pending in the District Court of Appeal, Second District, and that his court-appointed attorney had filed an “Anders Brief.” 1 The matter was treated as a petition for writ of mandamus.
On December 16, 1971, this Court wrote a letter of inquiry to the Clerk of the Second District Court of Appeal stating that the Court was withholding action on the petition pending disposition of petitioner’s counsel’s motion to withdraw from the appeal pending in the District Court and requesting notification on the disposition of the counsel’s motion to withdraw.
The Clerk of the District Court of Appeal, in his letter of reply, dated December 23, 1971, stated that the “Anders Brief” had been served on petitioner and he had been allowed thirty days plus two extensions of time within which to file an additional brief; that nothing was submitted by petitioner, that the State’s brief was filed on November 17, 1971, and since oral argument had not been requested, the case was assigned to the Court for consideration and determination on December 8, 1971. The Clerk’s letter goes on to point out that it is the practice of the District Court to hold in abeyance requests to withdraw made by counsel until after a full examination of all the proceedings, giving the indigent an opportunity to raise any points he chooses. Thus, it appears that no formal motion allowing counsel to withdraw is customarily entered in the District Court of Appeal, Second District, until after consideration of the merits of the case, including any additional briefs the indigent may have filed following his counsel’s motion to withdraw.
On March 27, 1972, this Court issued the alternative writ of mandamus directed to the Judges of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, to show cause why they should not “forthwith furnish petitioner the record in this case, using original file or as much as is available.”
The response of the District Court, filed April 10, 1972, states that petitioner has been furnished with a certified copy of the transcript of the record on file in the Court but also states that his appeal had already been disposed of by mandate of the District Court dated January 5, 1972, affirming the order and judgment of the trial court. It, therefore, appears that petitioner has his transcript but not in time for use in connection with his appeal in the District Court. Writ of mandamus is, accordingly, discharged but without prejudice to petitioner’s right to seek a belated appeal under the doctrine of Baggett v. Wainwright, 229 So.2d 239 (Fla.1969).
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The City OF Winter Garden v. Norflor Constr. Corp., 396 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…osition of this appeal. Mandamus is an extraordinary writ and discretionary remedy and should not be granted when it will achieve no beneficial result such as when the act sought to be compelled has been performed. See, e. g., Scarborough v. State, 262 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1972); Johnson v. Prosecuting Attorney for the Court of Record, 233 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1970); State ex rel. Lloyd v. City of Ft. [*867] Pierce, 206 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); Phillips v. State, 182 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); State ex re…
-
Johnson v. State, 708 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…aring has been set for April 7,1998, and we assume the trial court will soon thereafter rule on Johnson’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Thus, there is no necessity for this court to act. See Scarborough v. State, 262 So. 2d 674 (Fla.1972); Stupelli v. Dimitrouleas, 616 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Petition for Writ of Mandamus DENIED. W. SHARP, PETERSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Baggett v. Louie L. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1969)