JOSEPH M. LATSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1973-04-27
No. 72-635
HOBSON, J., concurs., MANN, C. J., concurs specially.
276 So. 2d 496 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1973) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Topics
Right To Counsel On Appeal Anders Brief

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right To Counsel On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PIERCE, Judge (Ret.).

PIERCE, Judge (Ret.).

Appellant Joseph M. Latson was tried and convicted in the Hillsborough County Criminal Court of Record of the offense of possession of a narcotic drug, to-wit: heroin, and was thereupon sentenced to serve a term in the State Prison. He has appealed the judgment and sentence to this Court. The Public Defender appointed to represent Latson 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 examined the record on appeal and can find nothing which could arguably support an appeal”; wherefore he moves to be permitted to withdraw as attorney of record for appellant, citing as authority therefor the case of 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 Latson, and on October 12, 1972, this Court entered order giving Latson thirty (30) 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 Latson, and find nothing therein sufficient tó justify a reversal of the judgment appealed. Accordingly the judgment is thereupon — ■

Affirmed.

HOBSON, J., concurs.

MANN, C. J., concurs specially.

MANN, Chief Judge

(concurring specially)-

I concur in affirmance on the present record. ■ I would point out, however, that in the trial court Latson’s counsel challenged the legality of jury selection in Hillsborough County. His appellate counsel did not pursue this question. However, it is being pursued in another case arising *497out of Hillsborough County, and if in that case Hillsborough County juries are declared to have been selected in an unlawful manner, Latson should then file for appellate review of this question pursuant to Baggett v. Wainwright, Fla.1969, 229 So.2d 239.

Concurrence
MANN, Chief Judge

MANN, Chief Judge

(concurring specially)-

I concur in affirmance on the present record. I would point out, however, that in the trial court Latson’s counsel challenged the legality of jury selection in Hillsborough County. His appellate counsel did not pursue this question. However, it is being pursued in another case arising out of Hillsborough County, and if in that case Hillsborough County juries are declared to have been selected in an unlawful manner, Latson should then file for appellate review of this question pursuant to Baggett v. Wainwright, Fla.1969, 229 So. 2d 239.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Miranda v. State, 279 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
    …MANN, Chief Judge (concurring specially). I concur specially for reasons stated in my concurring opinion in Latson v. State, Fla.App.1973, 276 So. 2d 496. See also my [*343] opinion in Wright v. State, Fla.App.1972, 269 So. 2d 17, and my dissenting opinion in Carmen v. State, Case No. 72-235, opinion filed April 27, 1973, not yet reported.…
  • Wright v. State, 280 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
    …MANN, Chief Judge (concurring specially) . I concur specially for reasons stated in my concurring opinion in Latson v. State, Fla.App.1973, 276 So. 2d 496. See also my opinion in Wright v. State, Fla.App.1972, 269 So. 2d 17, and my dissenting opinion in Carmen v. State, Case No. 72-235 opinion filed April 27, 1973 not yet reported.…
  • Myles v. State, 280 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
    …TION/SENTENCE” filed by appellant, pro se, challenged the legality of jury selection in Hillsborough County. With regard to this point see the special concurring opinion of Chief Judge Mann of this court in the case of Latson v. State, Fla.App.1973, 276 So. 2d 496. Appellant, having failed to demonstrate reversible error we, accordingly, Affirm. MANN, C. J., and LILES and BOARD-MAN, JJ., concur.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw