Doctawnus L. Anderson, Appellant, v. State of Florida, Appellee. (2024)

Order Striking Initial Brief

Doctawnus Anderson appeals the revocation of his probation and the resulting sentence.^* We strike Appellant's initial brief. As we have explained before and reiterate below, the initial brief is legally insufficient pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g)(2) and In re Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1991). See Blackmon v. State, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D1406 (Fla. 1st DCA July 3, 2024) (Order Striking Brief).

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g)(2)(A) provides, in part, that “[i]f appointed counsel files a brief stating that an appeal would be frivolous, the court must independently review the record to discover any arguable issues apparent on the face of the record.” Appointed counsel's brief does not comply with rule 9.140(g)(2)(A) because it does not “stat[e] that an appeal would be frivolous.” However, even if the brief included that statement, it would still be noncompliant.

Rule 9.140(g)(2) was promulgated to “codif[y] Anders case law.” In re Amends. to Fla. R. App. P. 9.140, 194 So. 3d 309, 309 (Fla. 2016). The Anders procedure that rule 9.140(g)(2)(A) sought to codify is rooted in “[t]he constitutional requirement of substantial equality and fair process,” which is “attained where counsel acts in the role of an active advocate.” Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appointed counsel's role “requires that he support his client's appeal to the best of his ability.” Id. at 744. To accomplish this, appellate counsel must “master the trial record, thoroughly research the law, and exercise judgment in identifying the arguments that may be advanced on appeal.” In re Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d at 151 (quoting McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 438 (1988)).

In turn, the procedure serves the interest of the client and assists appellate courts in their review. See In re Order of First Dist. Ct. of Appeal Regarding Brief Filed in Forrester v. State, 556 So. 2d 1114, 1117 (Fla. 1990) (“A careful review of the record, combined with a complete discussion of any possible points of merit to the appeal, serves the interests of both the client and the court.”); McCoy, 486 U.S. at 439 (“Thus, the Anders brief assists the court in making the critical determination whether the appeal is indeed so frivolous that counsel should be permitted to withdraw.”); State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321, 322 (Fla. 1987) (“The requirement in Anders of submitting a brief stating that the public defender has found no reversible error even worthy of a good faith argument is intended to promote fair appellate review, not stifle it. This requirement was specifically meant to ‘induce the court to pursue all the more vigorously its own review.’ ”) (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 745)).

Appointed counsel here has failed to show mastery of the trial record and thorough research of the law. The proceedings below were contested. Several witnesses testified. There were disputes about offense elements, Anderson's designation as a violent felony offender of special concern, and the propriety of a downward departure sentence. But the brief fails to address these issues, contains only limited facts, and lacks references to the record evidence that will be central to an adjudication.

In the brief, the discussion of the law consists of a single page, merely describing the trial court's finding that Anderson violated conditions of his probation. It lacks ready references to legal authorities, such as section 948.06, Florida Statutes, which governs revocation of probation. Briefly describing what occurred at the hearing and requesting that this Court cite cases pending before the Florida Supreme Court to preserve issues for further review does not comply with In re Anders Briefs or Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g)(2).

The initial brief is therefore stricken. Appointed counsel has thirty days to file a compliant brief that demonstrates a mastery of the trial record, thorough research of the law, and an exercise of judgment in identifying arguments that could be advanced on appeal.

Brief Stricken.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   Appellant filed this matter, appealing the revocation order and sentence from case no. 22–CF–0407. He also appeals the revocation order and sentence from case no. 23–CF–0025. See Anderson v. State, 1D2023–2573. Appellant's appointed counsel filed nearly identical Anders briefs in both cases.

Per Curiam.

Rowe, Kelsey, and Long, JJ., concur.