Marlowe v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Marlowe v. State

860 So. 2d 1075, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18715, 2003 WL 22900482

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 10, 2003

DocketNo. 3D00-1857

StatusPublished

This text of 860 So. 2d 1075 (Marlowe 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

Marlowe v. State, 860 So. 2d 1075, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18715, 2003 WL 22900482 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These are further proceedings in Marlowe v. State, 797 So.2d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). When the appeal was initially brought, defendant-appellant Marlowe was represented by counsel who filed an appearance. However, counsel never filed a brief. As this was an appeal from the summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief, the matter was submitted to the panel without briefs. Fla. RApp. P. 9.141(b)(2). This court then issued an af-firmance. 797 So.2d at 647.

Several months thereafter, the defendant requested a belated appeal. He alleged that his counsel had failed to file a brief and had not advised the defendant of this, so that the defendant could file a pro se brief. Further, he alleged that he was not informed of the outcome of the appeal until long after the time for rehearing had run. The State did not dispute these assertions. Accordingly we granted a belated appeal under Rule 9.141(c). The defendant submitted a pro se brief. This court appointed the public defender to address two issues, and the State has filed a response.

After carefully considering the able submissions of the parties, we adhere to the views expressed in our earlier opinion, and again conclude that the denial of the motion for postconviction relief (asserting claims of newly discovered evidence) was correctly denied.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

These are further proceedings in Marlowe v. State, 797 So.2d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). When the appeal was initially brought, defendant-appellant Marlowe was represented by counsel who filed an appearance. However, counsel never filed a brief. As this was an appeal from the summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief, the matter was submitted to the panel without briefs. Fla. RApp. P. 9.141(b)(2). This court then issued an af-firmance. 797 So.2d at 647.

Several months thereafter, the defendant requested a belated appeal. He alleged that his counsel had failed to file a brief and had not advised the defendant of this, so that the defendant could file a pro se brief. Further, he alleged that he was not informed of the outcome of the appeal until long after the time for rehearing had run. The State did not dispute these assertions. Accordingly we granted a belated appeal under Rule 9.141(c). The defendant submitted a pro se brief. This court appointed the public defender to address two issues, and the State has filed a response.

After carefully considering the able submissions of the parties, we adhere to the views expressed in our earlier opinion, and again conclude that the denial of the motion for postconviction relief (asserting claims of newly discovered evidence) was correctly denied.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

860 So. 2d 1075, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18715, 2003 WL 22900482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marlowe-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack