McGahee v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McGahee v. State

293 So. 2d 98, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7584

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 18, 1974

DocketNo. V-138

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 293 So. 2d 98 (McGahee 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

McGahee v. State, 293 So. 2d 98, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7584 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

[99]*99MOTION TO DISMISS

PER CURIAM:

This is a motion by appellee to dismiss the interlocutory appeal taken from an order denying a motion to dismiss the information and an order denying a motion to suppress evidence. The motions were predicated upon the State’s failure to.comply with discovery under Rule 3.220, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A. While we deplore the State’s apparent disregard of the discovery rule, an interlocutory appeal by the defendant is not countenanced by the Appellate Rules. State v. Pierce, Fla. 269 So.2d 664. Appellant’s argument in favor of our taking jurisdiction under common law certiorari is persuasive, but we are not constrained to do so in this instance. The question raised may, of course, be reviewed on appeal from judgment should there be a conviction.

Appeal dismissed.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and McCORD and JOHNSON, JJ„ concur.

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

[99]*99MOTION TO DISMISS

PER CURIAM:

This is a motion by appellee to dismiss the interlocutory appeal taken from an order denying a motion to dismiss the information and an order denying a motion to suppress evidence. The motions were predicated upon the State’s failure to.comply with discovery under Rule 3.220, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A. While we deplore the State’s apparent disregard of the discovery rule, an interlocutory appeal by the defendant is not countenanced by the Appellate Rules. State v. Pierce, Fla. 269 So.2d 664. Appellant’s argument in favor of our taking jurisdiction under common law certiorari is persuasive, but we are not constrained to do so in this instance. The question raised may, of course, be reviewed on appeal from judgment should there be a conviction.

Appeal dismissed.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and McCORD and JOHNSON, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 So. 2d 98, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgahee-v-state-fladistctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack