Hudson v. State
Decision Date | 03 October 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 1D00-2247.,1D00-2247. |
Citation | 767 So.2d 664 |
Parties | Tangela Lafay HUDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy Daniels, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and James W. Rogers, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellee.
ORDER ON APPELLEE'S MOTION TO STAY BRIEFING AND OTHER RELIEF
Tangela Lafay Hudson entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of sale of cocaine. A sentence of 364 days in county jail was imposed but suspended in favor of three years of probation. However, Ms. Hudson later conceded that she had violated the terms of her probation and the suspended sentence was imposed, with credit for time previously served. A timely notice of appeal was filed and the Public Defender for the Second Judicial Circuit was appointed. The Public Defender has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that no good faith argument can be made that reversible error was committed in the trial court. The brief was accompanied by the Public Defender's motion to allow the appellant to file a pro se brief and that motion was granted. This court also issued an order, on its own motion, which informed appellee that no answer brief would be required unless so ordered. In the meantime, however, the State of Florida filed the "motion to stay briefing and other relief" [sic] which we address in this published order. According to appellee, the Supreme Court of Florida announced in Leonard v. State, 760 So.2d 114 (Fla.2000) that the district courts should create a screening procedure which identifies appeals from guilty or unreserved nolo contendere pleas for summary review without further briefing. Concluding that this court has no such procedure the state asks that we institute one. The motion further states:
review denied, 581 So.2d 1310 (Fla. 1991), nothing in the United States Constitution requires that the state subsidize frivolous appeals and wasteful abuses of the appellate system by providing counsel or full appellate review once it is properly determined that the appeal is frivolous. Smith v. Robbins, 120 S.Ct. 746 (2000).
We find that this motion is not well-taken. We have carefully reviewed Leonard and find nothing therein which suggests that it abrogates the well-established procedures for Anders appeals, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial