State v. Croft

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Croft

499 So. 2d 849, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2365, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11465

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 13, 1986

DocketNo. 86-1113

StatusPublished

This text of 499 So. 2d 849 (State v. Croft) 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. Croft, 499 So. 2d 849, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2365, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11465 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

DAUKSCH, Judge.

The state seeks our review, by certiorari, of an order in a first degree murder case. The order disqualifies the entire fifth circuit state attorney’s office from prosecuting respondent Croft because one of its assistant state attorneys had at one time assisted in the defense of Croft, before the assistant state attorney took office as such.

While this court is of the opinion that State v. Fitzpatrick, 464 So.2d 1185 (Fla.1985) may be controlling authority for the merits of this case and that a response from respondent would be well advised, we are also of the opinion that McIntosh v. State, 496 So.2d 120 (Fla.1986) is controlling. McIntosh held that unless the state has a right to directly appeal the pretrial order then it has no right to certiorari review. See also Jones v. State, 477 So.2d 566 (Fla.1985); State v. G.P., 476 So.2d 1272 (Fla.1985); State v. C.C., 476 So.2d 144 (Fla.1985).

[850]*850The petition is denied because no right of appeal exists to review the order of disqualification.

WRIT DENIED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.

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

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

DAUKSCH, Judge.

The state seeks our review, by certiorari, of an order in a first degree murder case. The order disqualifies the entire fifth circuit state attorney’s office from prosecuting respondent Croft because one of its assistant state attorneys had at one time assisted in the defense of Croft, before the assistant state attorney took office as such.

While this court is of the opinion that State v. Fitzpatrick, 464 So.2d 1185 (Fla.1985) may be controlling authority for the merits of this case and that a response from respondent would be well advised, we are also of the opinion that McIntosh v. State, 496 So.2d 120 (Fla.1986) is controlling. McIntosh held that unless the state has a right to directly appeal the pretrial order then it has no right to certiorari review. See also Jones v. State, 477 So.2d 566 (Fla.1985); State v. G.P., 476 So.2d 1272 (Fla.1985); State v. C.C., 476 So.2d 144 (Fla.1985).

[850]*850The petition is denied because no right of appeal exists to review the order of disqualification.

WRIT DENIED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

499 So. 2d 849, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2365, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-croft-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack