Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Studnicka v. Carlisle

Studnicka v. Carlisle

567 So. 2d 17, 1990 WL 126384
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 5, 1990·No. 90-0820·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

567 So.2d 17 (1990)

George STUDNICKA, Petitioner,
v.
James T. CARLISLE, et al., Respondents.

No. 90-0820.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

September 5, 1990.
Rehearing and Clarification Denied October 18, 1990.

George Studnicka, West Palm Beach, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Carol Cobourn Asbury, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent, James T. Carlisle.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of prohibition is denied. Petitioners who are represented by counsel should file pleadings only through counsel. A defendant who has court-appointed counsel may not act as co-counsel as a matter of right. Goode v. State, 365 So.2d 381 (Fla. 1978). Nonetheless, we have considered the petition for writ of prohibition on the merits, and deny the petition on each point raised. As to the issue of proper venue, our denial is without prejudice to address this issue in the trial court.

GLICKSTEIN, DELL and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

Studnicka v. Carlisle, 567 So. 2d 17, 1990 WL 126384 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

567 So. 2d 17 (Studnicka v. Carlisle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Logan v. State
846 So. 2d 472 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2003)
Prevatt v. State
776 So. 2d 1114 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Smith v. State
758 So. 2d 741 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)