Background
William H. Clark appealed from the Circuit Court for Leon County. The First District’s per curiam disposition does not identify the particular ruling under review or provide a factual or procedural analysis.
Judge Neff’s separate concurrence describes the matter as an Anders appeal arising after Clark admitted a probation violation through an open plea. According to the concurrence, appointed appellate counsel found no good-faith argument and filed an Anders brief, requiring the court under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g)(2)(A) to review the record for arguable issues.
The Court’s Holding
The First District unanimously affirmed the appeal. Its per curiam disposition supplied no reasoning and did not specify the precise ruling or rulings being affirmed.
Judge Neff concurred fully in affirmance but wrote separately to criticize Florida’s Anders procedure. He argued that requiring appellate courts to search the record for unraised error is constitutionally unnecessary after Smith v. Robbins, conflicts with party presentation and judicial neutrality, and places courts in an advocacy role. He stated that his concurrence would be referred to the Florida Supreme Court clerk and The Florida Bar’s Appellate Court Rules Committee for consideration of an amendment to Rule 9.140(g)(2)(A).
Key Takeaways
- The First District affirmed the appeal through an unexplained per curiam disposition.
- Judge Neff’s separate concurrence urged reconsideration of Florida’s requirement that appellate courts independently search the record in Anders cases.
- The concurrence proposed that rulemakers consider requiring appointed counsel to file a merits brief instead of withdrawing, adopting a modified Anders procedure, or selecting another framework permitted by Smith v. Robbins.
Why It Matters
The disposition resolves Clark’s appeal without creating a reasoned majority holding on Florida’s Anders procedure. Judge Neff’s concurrence nevertheless adds to ongoing criticism of a process that requires Florida appellate judges to examine records for arguable issues even when counsel identifies none.
For appellate practitioners, the concurrence signals continued judicial interest in changing Rule 9.140(g)(2)(A), while recognizing that any reform must come through the Florida Supreme Court’s rulemaking authority rather than this panel’s disposition.