Mitchell v. State

Florida Circuit Courts

Mitchell v. State

34 Fla. Supp. 2d 65

Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida·Decided May 16, 1989·No. Case No. 88-353-AP·Published

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

The Petitioner, a defendant charged with driving under the influence, alleges that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by ordering the suspension of his driver’s license for refusing to take a breath test. The Court has reviewed the video tape and finds that, under the facts of this case, the Petitioner did refuse to take the test and thus is subject to the penalty for such refusal. In so holding the Court finds that there was no violation of the guidelines set in [66]*66Larmer v Department of Highway Safety, 522 So.2d 941 (4th DCA 1988), which we specifically adopt.

AFFIRMED.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

The Petitioner, a defendant charged with driving under the influence, alleges that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by ordering the suspension of his driver’s license for refusing to take a breath test. The Court has reviewed the video tape and finds that, under the facts of this case, the Petitioner did refuse to take the test and thus is subject to the penalty for such refusal. In so holding the Court finds that there was no violation of the guidelines set in [66]*66Larmer v Department of Highway Safety, 522 So.2d 941 (4th DCA 1988), which we specifically adopt.

AFFIRMED.

Mitchell v. State, 34 Fla. Supp. 2d 65 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1989).

Pincite

34 Fla. Supp. 2d 65 (Mitchell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related