State v. Arriagada

Supreme Court of Florida

State v. Arriagada

518 So. 2d 918, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 51, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 113, 1988 WL 4369

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJanuary 21, 1988

DocketNo. 70034

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 518 So. 2d 918 (State v. Arriagada) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Arriagada, 518 So. 2d 918, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 51, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 113, 1988 WL 4369 (Fla. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

OVERTON, Justice.

We have for review State v. Arriagada, 508 So.2d 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), in which the state sought review of a pretrial order suppressing certain identification testimony. The district court found this type of pretrial order nonreviewable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c). The district court also found that certiorari was not available as a means for review. The court acknowledged direct conflict with State v. Wilson, 483 So.2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), and certified the following as a question of great public importance.

Whether the holdings in Jones v. State, [477 So.2d 566 (Fla.1985)]; State v. G.P., [919]*919[476 So.2d 1272 (Fla.1985) ]; and State v. C.C., [476 So.2d 144 (Fla.1985) ], preclude the state from seeking common law cer-tiorari review of nonappealable interlocutory orders in criminal cases.

508 So.2d at 1248.

We recently answered this question in the negative in State v. Pettis, 520 So.2d 250 (Fla.1988). Accordingly, we quash Ar-riagada and remand to the district court for consideration consistent with Pettis.

It is so ordered.

MCDONALD, C.J., and EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

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

OVERTON, Justice.

We have for review State v. Arriagada, 508 So.2d 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), in which the state sought review of a pretrial order suppressing certain identification testimony. The district court found this type of pretrial order nonreviewable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c). The district court also found that certiorari was not available as a means for review. The court acknowledged direct conflict with State v. Wilson, 483 So.2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), and certified the following as a question of great public importance.

Whether the holdings in Jones v. State, [477 So.2d 566 (Fla.1985)]; State v. G.P., [919]*919[476 So.2d 1272 (Fla.1985) ]; and State v. C.C., [476 So.2d 144 (Fla.1985) ], preclude the state from seeking common law cer-tiorari review of nonappealable interlocutory orders in criminal cases.

508 So.2d at 1248.

We recently answered this question in the negative in State v. Pettis, 520 So.2d 250 (Fla.1988). Accordingly, we quash Ar-riagada and remand to the district court for consideration consistent with Pettis.

It is so ordered.

MCDONALD, C.J., and EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

518 So. 2d 918, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 51, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 113, 1988 WL 4369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-arriagada-fla-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack