State of Florida v. Steven Pietrasiuk

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State of Florida v. Steven Pietrasiuk

197 So. 3d 640, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12562, 2016 WL 4396054

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 18, 2016

Docket1D15-5322

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 So. 3d 640, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12562, 2016 WL 4396054, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-florida-v-steven-pietrasiuk-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack