Finfrock v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Finfrock v. State

4 So. 3d 33, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 18188, 2009 WL 275313

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 6, 2009

DocketNo. 5D08-3332

StatusPublished

This text of 4 So. 3d 33 (Finfrock 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

Finfrock v. State, 4 So. 3d 33, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 18188, 2009 WL 275313 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Joseph William Finfrock petitions for certiorari review of an order denying his [34]*34motion to dismiss a petition filed pursuant to the Jimmy Ryce Act, sections 394.910 through 394.932, Florida Statutes (2008), which seeks to have him civilly committed as a sexually violent predator. We agree with the analysis in Harris v. State, 766 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), which concluded “that an appeal from a final order is the adequate and appropriate remedy for denial of a motion to dismiss in this context, just as it is in virtually every other setting.” Id. at 1241 (citations omitted).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari without prejudice to Fin-frock’s right to raise his arguments on plenary appeal.

DENIED.

SAWAYA, TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Joseph William Finfrock petitions for certiorari review of an order denying his [34]*34motion to dismiss a petition filed pursuant to the Jimmy Ryce Act, sections 394.910 through 394.932, Florida Statutes (2008), which seeks to have him civilly committed as a sexually violent predator. We agree with the analysis in Harris v. State, 766 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), which concluded “that an appeal from a final order is the adequate and appropriate remedy for denial of a motion to dismiss in this context, just as it is in virtually every other setting.” Id. at 1241 (citations omitted).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari without prejudice to Fin-frock’s right to raise his arguments on plenary appeal.

DENIED.

SAWAYA, TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 So. 3d 33, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 18188, 2009 WL 275313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finfrock-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack