DOCKEY LEE COOK, 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 appellate court affirmed the conviction because it found no reversible error in the record after a thorough examination.
Appellant was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. His appointed counsel found no arguable basis for a…
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 Breaking And Entering With Intent To Commit A Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Dockey Lee Cook was tried and convicted in the Court of Record for Hillsborough County of the offense of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, and also of grand larceny, and was thereupon sentenced to serve a term in the State Prison. He has appealed the judgment and sentence to this Court. The local Public Defender, appointed to represent Cook on this appeal, filed brief in this Court in his behalf.
After reviewing the facts contained in the record, the Public Defender says in his brief that he “has carefully reviewed the record in this cause and can find nothing which would arguably support an appeal”; and for such reason he asked “to be relieved as Attorney of Record”, citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493.
The Public Defender has served a copy of his said brief upon appellant Cook, and *45on January 14, 1972, this Court entered order giving Cook thirty days therefrom to file any additional brief he might desire “calling the Court’s attention to any matters that he feels should be considered in connection with the appeal in this cause”. No additional brief has been filed.
We have thereupon carefully examined the entire record on file here on behalf of appellant Cook, and find nothing therein sufficient to justify a reversal of the judgment appealed. Accordingly, the judgment is thereupon—
Affirmed.
HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jasinsky v. Reilly, 40 Fla. Supp. 161 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1974)…not being allowable under the provisions of §51.011. The trial court’s order dismissing the appellants’ counterclaim is reversed under authority of Avvenire College for Women, Inc. v. G.B.E., Inc., 240 So. 2d 191 (1st Dist. 1970), Wright v. Draper, 264 So. 2d 44 (3rd Dist. 1972), and §51.011. The cited authorities [*162] allow counterclaims within the jurisdiction of the court in summary procedure actions under §51.011. This cause is remanded to the county court for trial under the provisions of §51.011. T…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)