State v. J.H.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. J.H.

450 So. 2d 232, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12481

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 27, 1984

DocketNo. 83-1283

StatusPublished

This text of 450 So. 2d 232 (State v. J.H.) 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. J.H., 450 So. 2d 232, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12481 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

PER CURIAM.

On the authority of State v. C.C., 449 So.2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (en banc), we dismiss the State’s appeal from the trial court’s order suppressing evidence and decline to treat the unauthorized notice of appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. We certify that this decision directly conflicts with State v. J.P.W., 433 So.2d 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), and State v. W.A.M., 412 So.2d 49 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 419 So.2d 1201 (Fla.1982). We further certify to the Supreme Court of Florida that this decision passes upon a question of great public importance, namely:

“Does the State have the authority to file plenary appeals in juvenile cases, and, if not, may this court review by certiorari an order suppressing evidence in a juvenile case?”

DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge, concurring.

Because this court sitting en banc in State v. C.C., 449 So.2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA [233]*2331983), has, over my dissent, decided these issues adversely to the State, I reluctantly concur in the panel’s decision.

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

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

PER CURIAM.

On the authority of State v. C.C., 449 So.2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (en banc), we dismiss the State’s appeal from the trial court’s order suppressing evidence and decline to treat the unauthorized notice of appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. We certify that this decision directly conflicts with State v. J.P.W., 433 So.2d 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), and State v. W.A.M., 412 So.2d 49 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 419 So.2d 1201 (Fla.1982). We further certify to the Supreme Court of Florida that this decision passes upon a question of great public importance, namely:

“Does the State have the authority to file plenary appeals in juvenile cases, and, if not, may this court review by certiorari an order suppressing evidence in a juvenile case?”

DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge, concurring.

Because this court sitting en banc in State v. C.C., 449 So.2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA [233]*2331983), has, over my dissent, decided these issues adversely to the State, I reluctantly concur in the panel’s decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

450 So. 2d 232, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jh-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack