Mullings v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mullings v. State

431 So. 2d 224, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19282

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 3, 1983

DocketNo. 82-2042

StatusPublished

This text of 431 So. 2d 224 (Mullings 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

Mullings v. State, 431 So. 2d 224, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19282 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), having deferred ruling on a motion of the special assistant public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the special assistant public' defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of this appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings, we conclude that the ap[225]*225peal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the special assistant public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed. Lusk v. State, 367 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979).

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

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), having deferred ruling on a motion of the special assistant public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the special assistant public' defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of this appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings, we conclude that the ap[225]*225peal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the special assistant public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed. Lusk v. State, 367 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

431 So. 2d 224, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullings-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack