Case ID: so2d_556/html/0753-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. GARRETT, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John FUTCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 89-0517.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Dec. 13, 1989.
    Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Margaret Good, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joan Fowler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

PER CURIAM.

We deny the motion to withdraw because counsel raises in the Anders brief the meritorious issue of the imposition of costs without a determination that appellant has the ability to pay such costs. Reeves v. State, 522 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). However, having raised that issue in the brief, we see no need of requiring the public defender to submit an additional brief on this issue. Appellant raises no other issue, and a review of the sentencing hearing reveals that appellant’s trial counsel made no objections at any stage of the proceedings, nor does our review disclose errors on the face of the record. State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321 (Fla.1987). We order the State to file its answer brief on the meritorious issue raised within 20 days.

DOWNEY and WARNER, JJ., concur.

GARRETT, J., concurs specially with opinion.

GARRETT, Judge,

concurring specially.

I proposed the following opinion:

We deny the public defender’s Anders motion to withdraw. Our required review of the record indicates that the trial court’s imposition of costs raises non-frivolous issues. State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321, 322 (Fla.1987). We direct the public defender to file its brief within thirty days of this opinion.

The majority in essence adopts the proposed opinion but allows the public defender’s Anders brief to serve as appellant’s initial brief. If given the opportunity to file an additional brief, the public defender may very well re-file its Anders brief as the initial brief, but that decision should be made by the assigned public defender, not this court. An Anders brief seeks to avoid a legal fight while an initial brief is the first appellate punch; we should not equate them.