Curtis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Curtis v. State

350 So. 2d 1142, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16838

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 24, 1977

DocketNo. GG-253

StatusPublished

This text of 350 So. 2d 1142 (Curtis 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

Curtis v. State, 350 So. 2d 1142, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16838 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners filed their petition for certio-rari alleging the lower court’s order denying their petition for writ of habeas corpus was a departure from the essential requirements of law.- They argue the lower court, although declaring them insolvent, erred in refusing to grant their motion for an order directing the court reporter to transcribe notes. In its order denying the motion, the lower court observed the majority rule is that the payment of a fine renders a case moot so as to preclude any review of an attack upon such a conviction, relying upon Annot., 9 A.L.R.3rd 476-477 (1966).

[1143]*1143Having reviewed the record and briefs of counsel, we find there has been no departure from the essential requirements of law. The petition for writ of certiorari is

DENIED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners filed their petition for certio-rari alleging the lower court’s order denying their petition for writ of habeas corpus was a departure from the essential requirements of law.- They argue the lower court, although declaring them insolvent, erred in refusing to grant their motion for an order directing the court reporter to transcribe notes. In its order denying the motion, the lower court observed the majority rule is that the payment of a fine renders a case moot so as to preclude any review of an attack upon such a conviction, relying upon Annot., 9 A.L.R.3rd 476-477 (1966).

[1143]*1143Having reviewed the record and briefs of counsel, we find there has been no departure from the essential requirements of law. The petition for writ of certiorari is

DENIED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

350 So. 2d 1142, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curtis-v-state-fladistctapp-1977.