State v. Lindao

Florida Circuit Courts

State v. Lindao

43 Fla. Supp. 2d 135

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedSeptember 24, 1990

DocketCase No. 89-017AC

StatusPublished

This text of 43 Fla. Supp. 2d 135 (State v. Lindao) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits 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. Lindao, 43 Fla. Supp. 2d 135 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

The defendant’s failure to appear upon notice resulted in the issuance of a bench warrant. A few months later when the defendant was stopped for a traffic violation, he was arrested on the warrant. He posted a cash bond, and again failed to appear.

Some ten months later the defendant moved to set aside the bench [136]*136warrant and to set aside the bond forfeiture. The trial judge set aside the bench warrant and “. . . close(d) the case on the estreature.”

We interpret the trial court’s action as a dismissal, which under these circumstances was improper. There was no motion to dismiss pending, and whether or not to pursue the case further was within the discretion of the state attorney, not the court. See State v Perez, 543 So.2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

The defendant’s failure to appear upon notice resulted in the issuance of a bench warrant. A few months later when the defendant was stopped for a traffic violation, he was arrested on the warrant. He posted a cash bond, and again failed to appear.

Some ten months later the defendant moved to set aside the bench [136]*136warrant and to set aside the bond forfeiture. The trial judge set aside the bench warrant and “. . . close(d) the case on the estreature.”

We interpret the trial court’s action as a dismissal, which under these circumstances was improper. There was no motion to dismiss pending, and whether or not to pursue the case further was within the discretion of the state attorney, not the court. See State v Perez, 543 So.2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 Fla. Supp. 2d 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lindao-flacirct-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack