[Download] "Appellate Court Response to Anders Briefs" by Supreme Court of Florida " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Appellate Court Response to Anders Briefs
- Author : Supreme Court of Florida
- Release Date : January 30, 1991
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 65 KB
Description
We have for review three cases consolidated by the district court in Coupe v. State, 564 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The
issue presented is whether indigent criminal appellants who have the right to appeal lose their pro se rights when their defense
counsel raise some arguably appealable issues in what are ostensibly "no merit" briefs filed pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).1{/Cite} Before discussing the facts in this case, we find it appropriate
to briefly review the Anders doctrine. In Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963), the United
States Supreme Court determined that every criminal defendant is entitled to representation of counsel under the sixth and
fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution in the first appeal as of right. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
79, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). This right is premised on the general notion that there is no assurance they will
get a fair result absent the vigorous representation of a trained legal advocate. Id. at 84. Essentially, Anders operates
as a narrow exception to that right of counsel by enabling courts to entertain an appeal as of right without counsel when
counsel believes the appeal is wholly without merit. Id. at 83. "However, once a court determines that the trial record supports
arguable claims, there is no basis for the exception and, as provided in Douglas, the criminal appellant is entitled to representation."
Id. at 84. The procedure established in Anders and its progeny requires an indigent's appellate counsel to "master the trial record,
thoroughly research the law, and exercise judgment in identifying the arguments that may be advanced on appeal. . . . Only
after such an evaluation has led counsel to the conclusion that the appeal is 'wholly frivolous' is counsel justified in making
a motion to withdraw." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 438-39, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988).
That motion, however, must be accompanied by an appellate brief referring to every arguable legal point in the record that
might support an appeal. Id. at 439; Penson, 488 U.S. at 80; Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Order of the First Dist.
Court of Appeal Regarding Brief Filed in Forrester v. State, 556 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 1990).