From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Payne v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Dec 9, 1991
589 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Summary

In Payne, this Court established a general policy disapproving the filing of a motion to withdraw together with the initial brief because “[t]o allow counsel to withdraw would require the court to reappoint the attorney to represent appellant if supplemental briefing is required.

Summary of this case from Neal v. State

Opinion

No. 91-2026.

December 9, 1991.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Judge Bill Parsons.

Jefferson W. Morrow, David, Morrow Edwards, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Jim Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.


Counsel for appellant has filed an Anders brief on behalf of his client and now moves to withdraw from representation. We deny the motion to withdraw.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

We write to suggest the following procedure is proper when an attorney files an Anders brief on behalf of a client. With the filing of the Anders brief, counsel for appellant should file a separate motion seeking leave for the client to file a brief in proper person. Ordinarily, that motion will be granted. After briefing is complete the court has the responsibility to review the Anders brief, pro se brief, the answer brief and record on appeal to determine if there are any issues present which may support reversal. If the court determines that supplemental briefing is required, Anders requires that indigent appellants be afforded the assistance of counsel. State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1987). To allow counsel to withdraw would require the court to reappoint the attorney to represent appellant if supplemental briefing is required. Such a procedure would result in an unnecessary additional delay. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is denied.

JOANOS, C.J., and SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Payne v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Dec 9, 1991
589 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

In Payne, this Court established a general policy disapproving the filing of a motion to withdraw together with the initial brief because “[t]o allow counsel to withdraw would require the court to reappoint the attorney to represent appellant if supplemental briefing is required.

Summary of this case from Neal v. State
Case details for

Payne v. State

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY F. PAYNE, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Dec 9, 1991

Citations

589 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Citing Cases

Neal v. State

Counsel properly refrained from filing a motion to withdraw at the outset. Payne v. State, 589 So.2d 1037…

Chapalet v. Sec'y Fla. Dep't of Corrs.

On December 26, 2007, Chapalet sent Shepard a letter from Century Correctional Institution, acknowledging…