Drost v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Drost v. State

51 So. 3d 1255, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 244, 2011 WL 180395

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 21, 2011

Docket5D10-2604

StatusPublished

This text of 51 So. 3d 1255 (Drost 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

Drost v. State, 51 So. 3d 1255, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 244, 2011 WL 180395 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Nicholas Drost appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.850. Because the order was entered by a judge who had previously recused himself from the probation revocation proceeding which was the subject of Drost’s rule 3.850 motion, said order is void. See Goolsby v. State, 914 So.2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Following the procedure utilized in Gools-by, we deem Drost’s notice of appeal as being a petition for writ of mandamus, grant the petition, and remand this matter to the trial court with directions that the post-conviction motion be considered de novo by a different judge.

PETITION GRANTED; CAUSE REMANDED.

GRIFFIN, PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Nicholas Drost appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.850. Because the order was entered by a judge who had previously recused himself from the probation revocation proceeding which was the subject of Drost’s rule 3.850 motion, said order is void. See Goolsby v. State, 914 So.2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Following the procedure utilized in Gools-by, we deem Drost’s notice of appeal as being a petition for writ of mandamus, grant the petition, and remand this matter to the trial court with directions that the post-conviction motion be considered de novo by a different judge.

PETITION GRANTED; CAUSE REMANDED.

GRIFFIN, PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 So. 3d 1255, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 244, 2011 WL 180395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drost-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack