Arminan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Arminan v. State

190 So. 3d 662, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5594, 2016 WL 1449331

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 13, 2016

DocketNo. 3D16-381

StatusPublished

This text of 190 So. 3d 662 (Arminan v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arminan v. State, 190 So. 3d 662, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5594, 2016 WL 1449331 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed, with the clarification that the prohibition in the decretal part of the trial court’s denial order, “Defendant is hereby PROHIBITED from filing any further motions without representation by a licensed member of the Florida Bar,” is limited to the case in which that Order was entered, namely State v. Arminan, Case No. F03-9926C, Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit for Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed, with the clarification that the prohibition in the decretal part of the trial court’s denial order, “Defendant is hereby PROHIBITED from filing any further motions without representation by a licensed member of the Florida Bar,” is limited to the case in which that Order was entered, namely State v. Arminan, Case No. F03-9926C, Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit for Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 So. 3d 662, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5594, 2016 WL 1449331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arminan-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.