Camero v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Camero v. State

810 So. 2d 559, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2269, 2002 WL 341057

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 6, 2002

DocketNo. 1D01-4591

StatusPublished

This text of 810 So. 2d 559 (Camero 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

Camero v. State, 810 So. 2d 559, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2269, 2002 WL 341057 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Having considered the petitioner’s response to this Court’s order of January 22, 2002, we treat the notice of appeal as invoking our certiorari jurisdiction and deny the state’s motion to dismiss. We further grant the petitioner’s request to treat his brief as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and deny the motion to compel the state to answer.

Finding no violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice, we deny the writ.

MINER, WOLF, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Having considered the petitioner’s response to this Court’s order of January 22, 2002, we treat the notice of appeal as invoking our certiorari jurisdiction and deny the state’s motion to dismiss. We further grant the petitioner’s request to treat his brief as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and deny the motion to compel the state to answer.

Finding no violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice, we deny the writ.

MINER, WOLF, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

810 So. 2d 559, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2269, 2002 WL 341057, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camero-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.