00-1857 MARLOWE V. STATE

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 00-1857 MARLOWE V. STATE

Case Date: 12/10/2003

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2003

RICHARD MARLOWE, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

** ** ** ** CASE NO. 3D00-1857

LOWER TRIBUNAL NOS. 77-25762 77-25171 Opinion filed December 10, 2003. **

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Victoria S. Sigler, Judge. Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Marti Rothenberg, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Consuelo Maingot, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before COPE, GREEN and SHEVIN, JJ. PER CURIAM. These are further proceedings in Marlowe v. State, 797 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). When the appeal was initially brought,

defendant-appellant Marlowe was represented by counsel who filed an appearance. However, counsel never filed a brief. As this was an

appeal from the summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief, the matter was submitted to the panel without briefs. Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2). So. 2d at 647. Several months thereafter, the defendant requested a belated appeal. He alleged that his counsel had failed to file a brief and This court then issued an affirmance. 797

had not advised the defendant of this, so that the defendant could file a pro se brief. Further, he alleged that he was not informed

of the outcome of the appeal until long after the time for rehearing had run. The State did not dispute these assertions. The

Accordingly we granted a belated appeal under Rule 9.141(c). defendant submitted a pro se brief.

This court appointed the

public defender to address two issues, and the State has filed a response. After carefully considering the able submissions of the

parties, we adhere to the views expressed in our earlier opinion, and again conclude that the denial of the motion for postconviction relief (asserting claims of newly discovered evidence) was

correctly denied. Affirmed.

2

Download 00-1857 MARLOWE V. STATE.pdf