HAROLD MARVIN WATSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fundamental Error Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have carefully read the record and briefs. It is well settled that normally an appellate court must confine itself to a review of only those questions which were before the trial court and upon which a ruling adverse to the appealing party was made. (State v. Barber, Sup.Ct.Fla.1974, 301 So. 2d 7) Appellant’s counsel, the public defender, has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We have accordingly searched the record to discover any fundamental error and find none. (Please see 28 C.J.S.Supp. Drugs and Narcotics § 208, p. 307, and United States v. Graham, 5th Cir. 1972, 464 F. 2d 1073, cert. den. 409 U.S. 987, 93 S.Ct. 341, 34 L.Ed.2d 252 (1973)).
Affirmed.
BOYER, C. J., and RAWLS and Mc-CORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1974)
- United States v. Graham, 464 F.2d 1073 (5th Cir. 1972)
- Padilla-Partida v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 409 U.S. 987 (U.S. 1972)
- Szczytko v. Johnson, 409 U.S. 987 (U.S. 1972)