ROLAND STANLEY PICKETT, 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.
A defendant granted indigent status and a transcript by trial court order was entitled to belated appellate review because the order's language reasonably conveyed that no further action was required to perfect the appeal.
A defendant who receives a trial court order adjudging him insolvent for appeal purposes is entitled to belated appellate review when the order's language reasonably conveys that no further action is required to perfect the appeal.
[1] A trial court order adjudging a defendant insolvent for appeal and granting a transcript, by its language suggesting no further action is required, relieves the defendant…
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 intelligence“The wording of said order would easily give a defendant in a criminal case the impression that his appeal is being perfected and that nothing further is required to be done by him.”
Court's analysis of why the trial court's June 20, 1974 order created a reasonable expectation that the appeal was being perfected without further action by the defendant.
Petitioner Pickett was adjudged insolvent for purposes of appeal and obtaining a trial transcript by trial court order on June 20, 1974. The state arg…
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 Petition For Belated Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition for a belated appeal under the authority of Hollingshead v. Wainwright, 194 So. 2d 577 (Fla.1967).
We issued our rule to show cause and the state has filed its return asserting that the defendant did not make known his desire to appeal this case to any state functionary and that therefore the tests enunciated in Baggett v. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 239 (Fla.1970), have not been met. However, our reading of the trial court’s order entered on June 20, 1974, adjudging petitioner insolvent for the purpose of appeal and obtaining a transcript of the trial proceedings, and for the further purpose of proceeding in the perfection of an appeal, gives us the impression that the tenor of that order — which incidentally appears to be a form order — is such as to put the petitioner under the impression that nothing further is required of him in order to perfect his appeal. The wording of said order would easily give a defendant in a criminal case the impression that his appeal is being perfected and that nothing further is required to be done by him.
In light of the tenor of the lower court’s order of June 20, 1974, we are inclined to believe that petitioner was not required to do anything more toward the perfection of his appeal; and, therefore, he is entitled to a full appellate review within the framework of the Hollingshead case, supra.
SPECTOR, Acting C. J., and BOYER and McCORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Baggett v. Louie L. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1969)
- Cleveland Hollingshead v. Louie L. Wainwright, 194 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1967)