State v. Hash

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Hash

36 So. 3d 833, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 7599, 2010 WL 2134102

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 28, 2010

Docket1D09-4962

StatusPublished

This text of 36 So. 3d 833 (State v. Hash) 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. Hash, 36 So. 3d 833, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 7599, 2010 WL 2134102 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the State’s appeal of the trial court’s order suppressing Appellee’s statement made during a taped interview. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(c)(1)(B) (permitting appeal by the State from a pretrial order suppressing confessions, admissions, or evidence obtained by search and seizure). We treat the remainder of the State’s appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari because it concerns pretrial orders suppressing collateral crime evidence. See Richardson v. State, 706 So.2d 1349, 1357 (Fla.1998); State v. Smith, 951 So.2d 954, 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). We deny the petition because the State has not shown that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law. See Smith, 951 So.2d at 957 (explaining that to obtain certiorari review in a criminal case, it is not enough to show that a pretrial order is incorrect; it must be shown that the order departs from the essential requirements of the law).

AFFIRMED in part; DENIED in part.

HAWKES, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the State’s appeal of the trial court’s order suppressing Appellee’s statement made during a taped interview. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(c)(1)(B) (permitting appeal by the State from a pretrial order suppressing confessions, admissions, or evidence obtained by search and seizure). We treat the remainder of the State’s appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari because it concerns pretrial orders suppressing collateral crime evidence. See Richardson v. State, 706 So.2d 1349, 1357 (Fla.1998); State v. Smith, 951 So.2d 954, 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). We deny the petition because the State has not shown that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law. See Smith, 951 So.2d at 957 (explaining that to obtain certiorari review in a criminal case, it is not enough to show that a pretrial order is incorrect; it must be shown that the order departs from the essential requirements of the law).

AFFIRMED in part; DENIED in part.

HAWKES, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 So. 3d 833, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 7599, 2010 WL 2134102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hash-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack