Siplin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Siplin v. State

346 So. 2d 648

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 7, 1977

DocketNos. DD-207, FF-236

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 346 So. 2d 648 (Siplin 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

Siplin v. State, 346 So. 2d 648 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Case No. DD-207 is an appeal from an order denying postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The public defender representing appellant filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We then allowed appellant a period of time within which to file a brief in proper person. Instead of only filing a brief, appellant filed a petition for habeas corpus covering the same subject matter and a brief in proper person therewith. We then entered an order consolidating the two cases, denying the petition for habeas corpus and ruling that we would consider appellant’s habeas corpus brief as his brief on the appeal. Upon consideration of the record and the brief, the order of the trial court is

AFFIRMED.

RAWLS, Acting C. J., and McCORD and SMITH, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Case No. DD-207 is an appeal from an order denying postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The public defender representing appellant filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We then allowed appellant a period of time within which to file a brief in proper person. Instead of only filing a brief, appellant filed a petition for habeas corpus covering the same subject matter and a brief in proper person therewith. We then entered an order consolidating the two cases, denying the petition for habeas corpus and ruling that we would consider appellant’s habeas corpus brief as his brief on the appeal. Upon consideration of the record and the brief, the order of the trial court is

AFFIRMED.

RAWLS, Acting C. J., and McCORD and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

346 So. 2d 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siplin-v-state-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack