State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“ursuant to anders, in order to assure indigents fair and meaningful appellate review, the appellate court must examine the record to the extent necessary to discover any errors apparent on the face of the record.”
467 citation events (367 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Deontra R. French v. State of Florida (fladistctapp, 2018-06-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Deontra R. French v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
ursuant to anders, in order to assure indigents fair and meaningful appellate review, the appellate court must examine the record to the extent necessary to discover any errors apparent on the face of the record.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) AFE v. State (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
while courts should not assume the role of appellate counsel, reversible error should not be ignored simply because an indigent appellant or a public defender failed to point it out.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) DEWAYNE FLOWERS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
while courts should not assume the role of appellate counsel, reversible error should not be ignored simply because an indigent appellant or a public defender failed to point it out.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Antuan Deangelos Williams v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
In Anders cases, an “appellate court must examine the record to the extent necessary to discover any errors apparent on the face of the record,” but need not do so with a “fine tooth comb,” seeking to discover the “most remote, unlikely error.” State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321, 322 (Fla. 1987) (emphasis added).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Willie E. Walker v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321, 322 (Fla. 1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) J.B., A CHILD v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
In the Anders context, we would then have “allow[ed] both the 1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 6 appellant and the state to submit briefs on issues that [we] found in [our] independent review to be arguable on the merits.” State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321, 323 (Fla. 1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Roger N. Rosier v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Anders review, 22 Fla. Prac., Criminal Practice & Procedure § 20:7 (2019 ed.) (citing Anders v. State, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321, 323 (Fla. 1987) (reading Anders to “allow both the appellant and the state to submit briefs on issues that the court has found in its independent review to be arguable on the merits.”) (emphasis added).
cited Cited as authority (rule) James M. Clark v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
This Court is required to perform an independent review “to discover any errors apparent on the face of the record.” State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321, 322 (Fla. 1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sean Jessie Flemon v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Appellant filed an initial brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), which requires that this court independently “examine the record to the extent necessary to discover any errors apparent on the face of the record.” State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321, 322 (Fla. 1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) K.O. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Appellant filed an initial brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), which requires that this court independently “examine the record to the extent necessary to discover any errors apparent on the face of the record.” State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321, 322 (Fla.1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Adams v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Appellant filed an initial brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), which requires that this court independently “examine the' record to the extent necessary to discover any errors apparent on- the face of the record.” State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321, 322 (Fla.1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marquies Brisbane v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Anders proceedings are intended to promote “fair appellate review” when appointed counsel submits a brief stating that they: have found “no reversible error even worthy of a good faith argu-ment_” State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321, 322 (Fla.1987).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Chestnut v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321, 323 (Fla.1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Neal v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
In State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321, 322 (Fla.1987), the Florida Supreme Court discussed the appellate court’s duty to independently review the record after appointed counsel files an Anders brief, “to the extent necessary to discover any errors apparent on the face of the record.” The court held: “While courts should hot assume the role of appellate counsel, reversible error should not be ignored simply because an indigent appellant or a public defender failed to point it out.” Causey, 503 So.2d at 322-23 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) TOWBRIDGE v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Although Anders does not require the appellate court to conduct a “fine tooth comb” review of all conceivable issues, it does require the court to independently “examine the record to the extent neces *487 sary to discover any errors apparent on the face of the record.” State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321, 322 (Fla.1987); see also In re Anders Briefs, 581 So.2d 149 (Fla.1991).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Baldwin v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 , 87 S.Ct. at 1400 ; State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321, 322 (Fla.1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Washington v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Causey then goes on to read Anders as allowing "both the appellant and the state to submit briefs on the issues that the court has found in its independent review to be arguable on the merits.” Id. at 323. .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Washington v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Causey then goes on to read Anders as allowing "both the appellant and the state to submit briefs on the issues that the court has found in its independent review to be arguable on the merits." Id. at 323. [7] Waterhouse v. State, 792 So.2d 1176, 1193 (Fla.2001).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) D.L.G. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
We have conducted an independent review in accordance with State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321, 323 (Fla.1987), and have found that the record of adjudication and disposition is confusing and needs to be addressed further on remand.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Roberts v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321, 322 (Fla.1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Berry v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
In accordance with our obligation under State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321, 322 (Fla. 1987), we "examine[d] the record to the extent necessary to discover any errors apparent on the face of the record." Based on this review, we directed counsel to submit supplemental briefs directed to the issues of whether the trial court satisfied the requirements of section 39.059(7) in sentencing Berry as an adult and whether the trial court's sentencing structure of consecutive specified residencies in the county jail and restitution center violated section 948.03(5), Florida Statutes (1991).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rembrowski v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 , 87 S.Ct. at 1400 ; State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321, 322 (Fla.1987).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Anders Briefs
Fla. · 1991 · confidence medium
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 , 87 S.Ct. at 1400 ; State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321, 322 (Fla. 1987).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Futch v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321, 322 (Fla.1987).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mosley v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321, 322 (Fla.1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hoover v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
Except in very limited circumstances, such as an appellate court's responsibility to examine the record to the extent necessary to discover any errors apparent on the face of the record when reviewing briefs filed by appellate counsel in Anders ( Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967)) cases, see State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321, 322 (Fla. 1987), the usual rule is that a party appealing a judgment must be aggrieved thereby, and that ordinarily error cannot be complained of by anyone unless it affects him prejudicially.
discussed Cited "see" Isaaih X Ash v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 , 322–23 (Fla. 1987) (requiring an appellate court to permit supplemental briefing when the court discovers “any errors apparent on the face of the record,” which are “arguable on the merits”).
cited Cited "see" Antonio Giles v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1987). * Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
discussed Cited "see" Perry v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321, 322 (Fla. 1987) (requiring district courts to “examine the record to the extent necessary to discover any errors apparent on the face of the record” upon receipt of Anders brief); In re Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149, 151 (Fla. 1991) (providing that, “[u]pon counsel’s submission of the motion to withdraw accompanied by an Anders brief, the indigent must be given the opportunity to file a pro se brief,” after which, the district court of appeal “assumes the responsibility of conducting a full and independent review of the record to discover any ar…
discussed Cited "see" DAROUS JAMES BUSH vs STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 , 322–23 (Fla. 1987) (“While courts should not assume the role of appellate counsel, reversible error should not be ignored simply because an indigent appellant or a public defender failed to point it out.” (emphasis added)); see also United States v. Wilmoth, 668 F. App’x 455, 457 (4th Cir. 2016) (“In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and found no meritorious issues for appeal, other than the risk enhancement issue, which we conclude fails harmless error review.”); United States v. Hill, 358 F. App’x 729, …
discussed Cited "see" RONALD DUBUC vs STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 , 322–23 (Fla. 1987) (holding that once appointed counsel files an Anders brief, an appellate court has the duty to independently review the entire record “to the extent necessary to discover any errors apparent on the face of the record” and, if a potential reversible error is found, to direct that briefs be submitted prior to rendering decision).
cited Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Schmidt
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.
cited Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Schmidt
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.
cited Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Schmidt
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.
discussed Cited "see" Jonathan Page v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321, 322 (Fla.1987) (explaining that upon the filing of an Anders brief, appellate courts must conduct an independent review of “the record.to the extent necessary to discover any errors apparent on the face of the record”).
cited Cited "see" Clark v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321 (Fla.1987).
cited Cited "see" Robert C. Clark v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1987).
cited Cited "see" Michael G. Kendrick v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1987).
cited Cited "see" McClain v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321 (Fla.1987).
discussed Cited "see" Collando-Pena v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
At that point, we assumed the affirmative duty “to conduct[ ] a full and independent review of the record to discover any arguable issues apparent on the face of the record.” In re Appellate Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So.2d 149, 151 (Fla. 1991); see State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321, 322-23 (Fla.1987).
cited Cited "see" Bailey v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321 (Fla.1987).
cited Cited "see" Vasquez-Roque v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321 (Fla.1987).
cited Cited "see" Anderson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321 (Fla.1987).
cited Cited "see" Read v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321 (Fla.1987).
cited Cited "see" Delvento v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321 (Fla.1987).
cited Cited "see" Carter v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321 (Fla.1987).
cited Cited "see" Edsall v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321 (Fla.1987).
cited Cited "see" Vasser v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321 (Fla.1987).
cited Cited "see" Baker v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321 (Fla.1987).
cited Cited "see" Welch v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321 (Fla.1987).
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Brenda CAUSEY, Respondent.
68624.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Feb 26, 1987.
503 So. 2d 321
Kogan.
Cited by 437 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 64%
Citer courts: District Court of Appeal of Fl… (1)

Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Patricia Conners, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for petitioner.

[*322] Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, and Kenneth L. Hosford, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for respondent.

KOGAN, Justice.

The First District Court of Appeal has certified the following question as being one of great public importance:

Does the language of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] (1967) stating: "If [the court] finds any of the legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous) it must, prior to decision, afford the indigent the assistance of counsel to argue the appeal" require that the parties be allowed to submit appellate briefs regarding the meritorious legal points prior to decision?

Causey v. State, 484 So.2d 1263, 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution. We answer the question in the affirmative and quash the opinion of the district court.

Brenda Causey was convicted of arson after her boyfriend's rented house burned. Following the conviction, her court-appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, stating that she could not make any good faith arguments to support reversible error. Causey did not file a pro se brief within the allotted time period, and the state filed its Anders answer brief. Upon its own review of the record, the first district found reversible error in the trial court's refusal to allow Causey's counsel to impeach the state's main witness during cross-examination. Without requesting the submission of briefs from the parties on that issue, the district court reversed the conviction and remanded the case to the circuit court.[*]

Before resolving the certified question, a preliminary issue must be addressed. That is, to what extent must a district court review the record pursuant to the filing of an Anders brief? The state contends that Anders requires no more than a cursory review, i.e., only to the extent of errors previously pointed out. To support this contention, the state cites Stokes v. State, 485 So.2d 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In that case, the district court held that "Anders ... does not require the appellate court to review the record in search of errors not raised by either appellant or his counsel." Id. at 876.

If appellate counsel has already brought possible errors to the attention of the court, then there would be no need to file an Anders brief. 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." Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S.Ct. at 1400. This implies that some degree of independent review is required, and we disapprove Stokes to the extent that it is inconsistent with the instant opinion.

This is not to say that we read Anders as requiring a "fine tooth comb" style of review. By no means should this opinion be read to require district courts to read between the lines of a record to discover the most remote, unlikely error. At the very least, however, pursuant to Anders, in order to assure indigents fair and meaningful appellate review, the appellate court must examine the record to the extent necessary to discover any errors apparent on the face of the record.

Dissenting in Stokes, Judge Barfield stated that "the better policy is for the appellate court to review the entire record in each case in which an Anders brief has been filed by appellate counsel, whether or not the appellant files a pro se brief." 485 So.2d at 877 (Barfield, J., dissenting). We agree that this is the better policy. While courts should not assume the role of appellate counsel, reversible error should not be[*323] ignored simply because an indigent appellant or a public defender failed to point it out.

We now reach the certified question presented to this Court. In the event that the reviewing court "finds any of the legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous) it must, prior to decision, afford the indigent the assistance of counsel to argue the appeal." Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400. We read this to allow both the appellant and the state to submit briefs on issues that the court has found in its independent review to be arguable on the merits. Submitting such briefs will give the appellate court the benefit of each side's thoughts, research, and analysis so that the court can be more fully informed on the issues.

In the case, sub judice, the First District Court of Appeal reversed Causey's conviction without allowing either party to brief the issue. Both parties agree, as do we, that this was error. Except in extreme or extraordinary circumstances, the district court should request that briefs be submitted on the issues raised by the court before the court renders its opinion. This would present both sides with the fair opportunity to be heard.

No such opportunity was available here. Moreover, no extreme or extraordinary circumstances requiring expedience were present. Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the affirmative, quash the opinion of the district court, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

McDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT and GRIMES, JJ., concur.

[*] Causey subsequently pleaded guilty to the offense of attempted arson. Despite this disposition, we retain jurisdiction to resolve this still viable issue of great import. See Sadowski v. Shevin, 345 So.2d 330 (Fla. 1977).