James Isiae Blackmon, Jr., Appellant, v. State of Florida, Appellee. (2024)

Order Striking Brief

Appellant's appointed counsel's Anders * brief is insufficient under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g)(2) and In re Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149, 152 (Fla. 1991), and is therefore stricken.

Appellant was convicted of second-degree murder and attempted premeditated first-degree murder. This appeal followed and Appellant's appointed counsel filed an Anders brief under rule 9.140(g)(2). The brief certified that “undersigned counsel has concluded that no good faith argument can be made that reversible error occurred in the lower court.” The brief does not refer to every legal point in the record that might support an appeal.

Rule 9.140(g)(2)(A) provides that “If appointed counsel files a brief stating an appeal would be frivolous, the court shall independently review the record to discover any arguable issues apparent on the face of the record.” Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(g)(2)(A) (emphasis supplied). However, an Anders brief is not compliant simply because it “states an appeal would be frivolous.” In re Anders Briefs established that appointed counsel must “ ‘master the trial record, thoroughly research the law, and exercise judgment in identifying the arguments that may be advanced on appeal” and “[o]nly after such an evaluation” may counsel conclude “that the appeal is wholly frivolous ․’ ” 581 So. 2d at 151 (emphasis supplied) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 438–39 (1988)). Therefore, a motion to withdraw “must be accompanied by an appellate brief referring to every arguable legal point in the record that might support an appeal.” Id. (emphasis supplied) (citing McCoy, 486 U.S. at 439).

Here, appointed counsel showed a mastery of the record, but did not “identify the arguments that may be advanced on appeal” as required by In re Anders Briefs. The brief's Argument section merely describes a single motion that Appellant filed, his motion for judgment of acquittal. Instead of explaining why an appeal of the order denying that motion may be frivolous, the brief states that this Court “should determine whether the trial court erred when it denied Appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal,” and if so, should order briefing. This Court has an obligation to independently review the record, see Anders, 386 U.S. at 745; In re Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d at 151; Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(g)(2)(A), but only after appointed counsel has complied with her obligations under Anders, its progeny, and rule 9.140(g)(2)(A).

Accordingly, appointed counsel's Anders brief is stricken. Counsel has thirty (30) days to file a brief that complies with the mandate of Anders v. California and its progeny, including In re Anders Briefs.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Per Curiam.

Kelsey, Winokur, and Nordby, JJ., concur.