State ex rel. Dade County v. Romero

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State ex rel. Dade County v. Romero

456 So. 2d 1281, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2108, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15312

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 2, 1984

DocketNo. 83-2667

StatusPublished

This text of 456 So. 2d 1281 (State ex rel. Dade County v. Romero) 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

State ex rel. Dade County v. Romero, 456 So. 2d 1281, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2108, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15312 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order granting the surety’s application for remission of forfeiture is reversed upon a holding that (1) where, as here, the criminal defendant was not surrendered by the surety nor otherwise apprehended, the trial court was without jurisdiction to entertain the application for remission not made “within one year from forfeiture,” as required by Section 903.28, Florida Statutes (1981); (2) even if, arguendo, this statutory limit for applications for remission could be extended by the trial court upon a motion made before expiration of the year, no legally sufficient motion was made within such period of time; and (3) even if, ar-guendo, the application for remission had been timely made, no showing was made that the bond was not breached, that the defendant was surrendered, or that there was some other reasonable cause for remitting the forfeiture.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The order granting the surety’s application for remission of forfeiture is reversed upon a holding that (1) where, as here, the criminal defendant was not surrendered by the surety nor otherwise apprehended, the trial court was without jurisdiction to entertain the application for remission not made “within one year from forfeiture,” as required by Section 903.28, Florida Statutes (1981); (2) even if, arguendo, this statutory limit for applications for remission could be extended by the trial court upon a motion made before expiration of the year, no legally sufficient motion was made within such period of time; and (3) even if, ar-guendo, the application for remission had been timely made, no showing was made that the bond was not breached, that the defendant was surrendered, or that there was some other reasonable cause for remitting the forfeiture.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

456 So. 2d 1281, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2108, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-dade-county-v-romero-fladistctapp-1984.