State of Florida v. Steven Pietrasiuk

197 So. 3d 640, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12562, 2016 WL 4396054
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 18, 2016·No. 1D15-5322·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The State petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to quash the circuit court’s reversal of the county court’s denial of respondent’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.860 motion.

We deny the State’s petition for writ of certiorari, as the State failed to establish a departure from the clearly established principles of law. See Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. San Perdido Ass’n, Inc., 104 So.3d 344, 356-56 (Fla.2012).

We note, however, that the denial of a petition for writ of certiorari does not necessarily connote agreement with the circuit court’s conclusion. Rather, this court is bound by the limited standard of review of second-tier certiorari and, though we may find the circuit court’s conclusion was erroneous, erroneous conclusions do not amount to departures from the essential requirements of the law remediable by certiorari. Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So.3d 1086, 1093 (Fla.2010); see also Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., [641]*641774 So.2d 679, 682 (Fla.2000) (“[T]he departure from the essential requirements of the law necessary for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is something more than a simple legal error”).

As such, we DENY the State’s petition for -writ of certiorari.

ROBERTS, C.J., and WOLF, J., concur; WINOKUR, J., concurs with opinion.

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

State of Florida v. Steven Pietrasiuk, 197 So. 3d 640, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12562, 2016 WL 4396054 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

197 So. 3d 640 (State of Florida v. Steven Pietrasiuk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State, Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Walsh
204 So. 3d 169 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)