JUNE CLAYTON, 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 the conviction for unlawful sale of heroin where the public defender filed an Anders brief finding no arguable issues on appeal and the defendant failed to identify any meritorious claims.
A conviction for unlawful sale of heroin is affirmed where the appellate public defender files an Anders brief identifying no arguable issues and the defendant fails to submit a supplemental brief raising any meritorious claims.
[1] When an appellate public defender files an Anders brief after finding no arguable issues in the record, the appellate court must serve the brief on the defendant and allo…
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 intelligenceJune Clayton was charged with and convicted by jury of unlawful sale of heroin. She was sentenced to imprisonment in the State Prison and appealed dir…
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 Appellate Review Of Criminal Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant June Clayton was charged, tried, and found guilty by a jury of the unlawful sale of a narcotic drug, to-wit, heroin. In due course, she was adjudged guilty as charged and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the State Prison. She has appealed from said judgment and sentence directly to this Court.
The local Public Defender, who was appointed by the trial Court to represent appellant here, has filed in this Court what is known as an Anders brief” wherein, after reviewing the merits contained in the transcript of record, states that he “has carefully examined the record on appeal and can find nothing which would arguably support an appeal”, and for such reason requests that he be relieved as attorney of record for appellant, citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493.
Accordingly, this Court caused a copy of said brief to be served on appellant, who was thereupon allowed 30 days by this Court to file an additional brief calling our attention to any matters which appellant feels should be considered by us in connection with the appeal. Nothing sufficient having been so filed by or on behalf of appellant, the judgment and sentence appealed is hereby—
Affirmed.
HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.