State v. Boyd

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Boyd

610 So. 2d 64, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12509, 1992 WL 361238

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 9, 1992

DocketNos. 91-3348 to 91-3353, 91-3355 to 91-3357 and 91-3359 to 91-3366

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 610 So. 2d 64 (State v. Boyd) 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 v. Boyd, 610 So. 2d 64, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12509, 1992 WL 361238 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The state seeks to have this court exercise jurisdiction pursuant to rule 9.160, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. District courts may only exercise jurisdiction pursuant to that rule if the order being challenged is otherwise appealable to the circuit court pursuant to rule 9.140(c), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. See rule 9.030(b)(4)(B), Fla.R.App.P. The order of the county court which is being appealed held that the state could not rely on compliance with Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services’ rules to supplant the traditional predicate for the introduction of breathalyzer test results. The order in this case, as in State v. Kepke, 596 So.2d 715 (Fla. 4th DCA1992), is not an absolute bar to admission of breathalyzer test results and, thus, since it does not suppress evidence, it is not appealable under rule 9.140(c)(1)(B), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. We, therefore, determine we are without jurisdiction. See Kepke, supra.

This case is, therefore, transferred to the circuit court for disposition where the parties may raise any issues related to the circuit court’s jurisdiction.

ZEHMER, ALLEN and WOLF, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The state seeks to have this court exercise jurisdiction pursuant to rule 9.160, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. District courts may only exercise jurisdiction pursuant to that rule if the order being challenged is otherwise appealable to the circuit court pursuant to rule 9.140(c), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. See rule 9.030(b)(4)(B), Fla.R.App.P. The order of the county court which is being appealed held that the state could not rely on compliance with Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services’ rules to supplant the traditional predicate for the introduction of breathalyzer test results. The order in this case, as in State v. Kepke, 596 So.2d 715 (Fla. 4th DCA1992), is not an absolute bar to admission of breathalyzer test results and, thus, since it does not suppress evidence, it is not appealable under rule 9.140(c)(1)(B), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. We, therefore, determine we are without jurisdiction. See Kepke, supra.

This case is, therefore, transferred to the circuit court for disposition where the parties may raise any issues related to the circuit court’s jurisdiction.

ZEHMER, ALLEN and WOLF, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

610 So. 2d 64, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12509, 1992 WL 361238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-boyd-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack