Perez v. State
590 So. 2d 1137, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 137, 1992 WL 1340
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Perez v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 566 So. 2d 881 →
Opinion
We initially dismissed this appeal on the belief that it had been filed untimely. On appellant’s pro se motion, we agreed that the appeal was in fact timely, and reinstated it by order dated December 5, 1991.
Having considered appellant’s brief as well as defense counsel’s motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we grant the motion to withdraw, and affirm the sentence appealed.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Perez v. State, 590 So. 2d 1137, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 137, 1992 WL 1340 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).
590 So. 2d 1137 (Perez v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)