Faust v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Faust v. State

505 So. 2d 8, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 727, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12021

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 10, 1987

DocketNo. BN-454

StatusPublished

This text of 505 So. 2d 8 (Faust v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Faust v. State, 505 So. 2d 8, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 727, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12021 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The brief filed by the assistant public defender pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and Reed v. State, 378 So.2d 899 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) does not comply with the requirements for such briefs as set forth in Smith v. State, 496 So.2d 971 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Because the appellant’s brief was filed before Smith was decided, we proceeded to examine the record and have found numerous issues which might arguably support a meritorious presentation on appeal. However, our study of these issues has also convinced us that no reversible error exists. Only because Smith was decided after appellant’s brief was filed do we decline to strike the brief for failure to comply with the requirements of Anders, Smith, and Reed. The judgments and sentences appealed are AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, C.J., and MILLS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The brief filed by the assistant public defender pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and Reed v. State, 378 So.2d 899 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) does not comply with the requirements for such briefs as set forth in Smith v. State, 496 So.2d 971 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Because the appellant’s brief was filed before Smith was decided, we proceeded to examine the record and have found numerous issues which might arguably support a meritorious presentation on appeal. However, our study of these issues has also convinced us that no reversible error exists. Only because Smith was decided after appellant’s brief was filed do we decline to strike the brief for failure to comply with the requirements of Anders, Smith, and Reed. The judgments and sentences appealed are AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, C.J., and MILLS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 So. 2d 8, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 727, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faust-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack