Blades v. Henry

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Blades v. Henry

720 So. 2d 323, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14693, 1998 WL 796724

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 18, 1998

DocketNo. 98-2578

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 720 So. 2d 323 (Blades v. Henry) 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

Blades v. Henry, 720 So. 2d 323, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14693, 1998 WL 796724 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner is the defendant in a wrongful death suit. He was prosecuted on criminal charges arising out of the same incident, but was granted a judgment of acquittal. He seeks a writ of certiorari from an order denying his motion for protective order based on his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Although he has already been prosecuted on criminal charges arising out of the same incident and granted a judgment of acquittal, he argues that he still has exposure to other criminal charges.

The petition states that it is being taken from two orders, one entered on June 23, 1998 and the other entered on July 16, 1998, and is timely as to both of those orders. The respondent points out; however, that the petitioner filed his first motion for protective order based on the privilege against self-incrimination on February 2, 1998, and that his motion was denied on March 5, 1998. The petition is therefore untimely. Bensonhurst Drywall, Inc. v. Ledesma, 583 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)(petitioner cannot evade the time requirements for filing a petition for certiorari by filing a second motion addressed to the same issue determined by an earlier order).

We therefore dismiss the petition.

KLEIN, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner is the defendant in a wrongful death suit. He was prosecuted on criminal charges arising out of the same incident, but was granted a judgment of acquittal. He seeks a writ of certiorari from an order denying his motion for protective order based on his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Although he has already been prosecuted on criminal charges arising out of the same incident and granted a judgment of acquittal, he argues that he still has exposure to other criminal charges.

The petition states that it is being taken from two orders, one entered on June 23, 1998 and the other entered on July 16, 1998, and is timely as to both of those orders. The respondent points out; however, that the petitioner filed his first motion for protective order based on the privilege against self-incrimination on February 2, 1998, and that his motion was denied on March 5, 1998. The petition is therefore untimely. Bensonhurst Drywall, Inc. v. Ledesma, 583 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)(petitioner cannot evade the time requirements for filing a petition for certiorari by filing a second motion addressed to the same issue determined by an earlier order).

We therefore dismiss the petition.

KLEIN, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

720 So. 2d 323, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14693, 1998 WL 796724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blades-v-henry-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack