State v. Peloquin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Peloquin

678 So. 2d 1303, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12892, 1995 WL 739704

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 15, 1995

DocketNos. 94-01552, 94-01761, 94-02207, 94-02208, 94-02939, 94-02942 and 94-02945

StatusPublished

This text of 678 So. 2d 1303 (State v. Peloquin) 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. Peloquin, 678 So. 2d 1303, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12892, 1995 WL 739704 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated cases, the state seeks review of the county courts’ nonfinal orders which declare unconstitutional section 316.193(6)(d), Florida Statutes (1993) (the DUI vehicle impoundment law). The state charged the defendants with DUI, and after pretrial hearings, the county courts found section 316.193(6)(d) unconstitutional. The record reveals that the substantive charges remain dormant.

Pursuant to section 316.193(6)(d), the issue of vehicle impoundment does not arise until after conviction, and as in the case at hand, a pretrial order declaring a statute or ordinance unconstitutional, without more, is not appealable. State v. Calloway, 589 So.2d 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), review denied, 599 So.2d 654 (Fla.1992). The orders that we have reviewed deal with postconviction im-poundment and do not bear upon the trial of the cases; hence, they do not meet the standard for review by certiorari jurisdiction recognized in State v. Pettis, 520 So.2d 250 (Fla.1988). These cases are therefore dismissed.

RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated cases, the state seeks review of the county courts’ nonfinal orders which declare unconstitutional section 316.193(6)(d), Florida Statutes (1993) (the DUI vehicle impoundment law). The state charged the defendants with DUI, and after pretrial hearings, the county courts found section 316.193(6)(d) unconstitutional. The record reveals that the substantive charges remain dormant.

Pursuant to section 316.193(6)(d), the issue of vehicle impoundment does not arise until after conviction, and as in the case at hand, a pretrial order declaring a statute or ordinance unconstitutional, without more, is not appealable. State v. Calloway, 589 So.2d 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), review denied, 599 So.2d 654 (Fla.1992). The orders that we have reviewed deal with postconviction im-poundment and do not bear upon the trial of the cases; hence, they do not meet the standard for review by certiorari jurisdiction recognized in State v. Pettis, 520 So.2d 250 (Fla.1988). These cases are therefore dismissed.

RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

678 So. 2d 1303, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12892, 1995 WL 739704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-peloquin-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack