JUDSON WAYNE SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1969-04-23
No. 68-136
LILES, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
222 So. 2d 45 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1969) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

This case concerns an appeal where the public defender sought to withdraw, claiming the appeal was frivolous. The appellate court disagreed, finding potential merit in the appellant's points and ordering the trial court to appoint new appellate counsel to file a proper brief.


Holding

The court held that the appeal was not frivolous and that the public defender could not withdraw without further briefing. The court ordered the trial court to appoint new appellate counsel.


Key Quotes

“Our cursory inspection of the record indicates that at least the two points raised by the appellant himself, and conceivably others, while they may ultimately be decided against the appellant, are not frivolous and ought to be briefed.”

This quote establishes the court's finding that the appeal was not frivolous, contrary to the public defender's assertion.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The public defender, after being appointed to represent the appellant, filed a motion to withdraw, asserting that the appeal was frivolous. The appell…

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.


Opinion of the Court
MANN, Judge.

MANN, Judge.

After denial of the motion filed herein by the Public Defender for the Fifth Judicial Circuit for leave to withdraw as counsel the defender filed a “brief” for the appellant informing us that the appeal was frivolous. Our cursory inspection of the record indicates that at least the two points raised by the appellant himself, and conceivably others, while they may ultimately be decided against the appellant, are not frivolous and ought to be briefed. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

We relinquish jurisdiction temporarily to the trial court for the appointment of appellate counsel who will be directed to file a brief for the appellant herein within sixty days of the trial court’s order, appellee’s brief and appellant’s reply to follow in due course under the Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.

LILES, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Judson Wayne Smith v. State, 228 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
    …in this prosecution for breaking and entering. A timely motion to suppress was filed, and it should have been granted. In fairness to the able trial judge it must be said that Smith’s trial counsel, not named either here or in our former opinion at 222 So. 2d 45, did not bring to the attention of the court Courington v. State, Fla. 1954, 74 So. 2d 652, which compels reversal for a new trial. See also Chimel v. California (1969), 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685. Reversed and remanded. LILES, Ac…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw