Hauser v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hauser v. State

171 So. 3d 824, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11918, 2015 WL 4758348

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 12, 2015

Docket2D15-1359

StatusPublished

This text of 171 So. 3d 824 (Hauser 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

Hauser v. State, 171 So. 3d 824, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11918, 2015 WL 4758348 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Gregory Donald Hauser seeks certiorari review of the circuit court’s appellate per curiam affirmance of his appeal of his judgment and sentence for misdemeanor battery. The circuit court deprived Mr. Hauser of his right to file a pro se brief by issuing its decision only seven days after Mr. Hauser’s court-appointed counsel filed a no-merit brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), which provides that “[a] copy of counsel’s brief should be furnished the indigent and time allowed him to raise any points that he chooses.” See also In re Anders Briefs, 581 So.2d 149, 151 (Fla. 1991) (“Upon counsel’s submission of ... an Anders brief, the indigent must be given the opportunity to file a pro se brief.”). The State has appropriately conceded that the circuit court failed to provide Mr. Hau-ser with procedural due process and thereby violated “a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So.2d 885, 889 (Fla.2003) (citing Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So.2d 679, 682 (Fla.2000); then citing Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 528 (Fla.1995)).

Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari, quash the circuit court’s order, and remand for the circuit court to give Mr. Hauser an opportunity to file a pro se brief within no fewer than twenty days of the date that the mandate issues in this proceeding.

Petition granted; opinion quashed; remanded.

SILBERMAN, WALLACE, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Gregory Donald Hauser seeks certiorari review of the circuit court’s appellate per curiam affirmance of his appeal of his judgment and sentence for misdemeanor battery. The circuit court deprived Mr. Hauser of his right to file a pro se brief by issuing its decision only seven days after Mr. Hauser’s court-appointed counsel filed a no-merit brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), which provides that “[a] copy of counsel’s brief should be furnished the indigent and time allowed him to raise any points that he chooses.” See also In re Anders Briefs, 581 So.2d 149, 151 (Fla. 1991) (“Upon counsel’s submission of ... an Anders brief, the indigent must be given the opportunity to file a pro se brief.”). The State has appropriately conceded that the circuit court failed to provide Mr. Hau-ser with procedural due process and thereby violated “a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So.2d 885, 889 (Fla.2003) (citing Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So.2d 679, 682 (Fla.2000); then citing Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 528 (Fla.1995)).

Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari, quash the circuit court’s order, and remand for the circuit court to give Mr. Hauser an opportunity to file a pro se brief within no fewer than twenty days of the date that the mandate issues in this proceeding.

Petition granted; opinion quashed; remanded.

SILBERMAN, WALLACE, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 So. 3d 824, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11918, 2015 WL 4758348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hauser-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack