L.C. v. State

750 So. 2d 160, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 1033
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 9, 2000·No. No. 3D00-137·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On December 19, 1999, the trial court granted the respondent’s motion to suppress; the State then announced a nolle prosse of the action. On December 22, 1999, the State filed a motion for rehearing. The trial court took the motion under advisement, but expressed some doubt as to whether it still had jurisdiction over the matter. The respondent seeks a writ of prohibition from this court to prevent the trial court from proceeding.

The State now agrees that once it announced a nolle prosse, no charges remained pending and the trial court was divested of jurisdiction. See State v. Braden, 375 So.2d 49, 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)(“As a general proposition, everything which occurs in a proceeding subsequent to the fifing of a nolle prosse by the state is a nullity.”).

We find it unnecessary to issue the formal writ.

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

L.C. v. State, 750 So. 2d 160, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 1033 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

750 So. 2d 160 (L.C. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sadler v. State
949 So. 2d 303 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Higgins v. State
799 So. 2d 344 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)