State v. Pincus

Florida Circuit Courts

State v. Pincus

34 Fla. Supp. 2d 16

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedDecember 15, 1988

DocketCase No. 88-8970 (County Court Case No. 78-973620)

StatusPublished

This text of 34 Fla. Supp. 2d 16 (State v. Pincus) 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. Pincus, 34 Fla. Supp. 2d 16 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

HARRY LEE COE, III, Circuit Judge.

In this appeal, the State challenges an order granting a Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis. The State argues that by waiting ten years to attack his 1978 DUI conviction, the defendant is precluded by the doctrine of Laches from obtaining the requested relief.

This Court agrees with the State (see State v Caudle, 504 So.2d 419 (5th DCA 1987)). In the instant case, the State established not only an inordinate delay on the part of the defendant in instituting these [17]*17proceedings, but also that the records pertaining to the defendant’s 1978 conviction were destroyed by fire.

Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed and remanded with directions to reinstate the defendant’s 1978 Judgment and Sentence.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, this 15th day of December, 1988.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

HARRY LEE COE, III, Circuit Judge.

In this appeal, the State challenges an order granting a Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis. The State argues that by waiting ten years to attack his 1978 DUI conviction, the defendant is precluded by the doctrine of Laches from obtaining the requested relief.

This Court agrees with the State (see State v Caudle, 504 So.2d 419 (5th DCA 1987)). In the instant case, the State established not only an inordinate delay on the part of the defendant in instituting these [17]*17proceedings, but also that the records pertaining to the defendant’s 1978 conviction were destroyed by fire.

Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed and remanded with directions to reinstate the defendant’s 1978 Judgment and Sentence.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, this 15th day of December, 1988.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Fla. Supp. 2d 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pincus-flacirct-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack