Tillman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tillman v. State

383 So. 2d 915

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 26, 1980

DocketNo. 79-263

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 383 So. 2d 915 (Tillman 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

Tillman v. State, 383 So. 2d 915 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

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 public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the 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 appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed. See: Schneble v. State, 201 So.2d 881 (Fla.1967); State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823 (Fla.1976); Zuberi v. State, 343 So.2d 664 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Jones v. State, 360 So.2d 1293 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Rodriguez v. State, 379 So.2d 657 (Fla.3d DCA 1980).

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 public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the 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 appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed. See: Schneble v. State, 201 So.2d 881 (Fla.1967); State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823 (Fla.1976); Zuberi v. State, 343 So.2d 664 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Jones v. State, 360 So.2d 1293 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Rodriguez v. State, 379 So.2d 657 (Fla.3d DCA 1980).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 So. 2d 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tillman-v-state-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack