Studnicka v. Carlisle
This text of 567 So. 2d 17 (Studnicka v. Carlisle) 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.
Opinion
George STUDNICKA, Petitioner,
v.
James T. CARLISLE, et al., Respondents.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
567 So. 2d 17, 1990 WL 126384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/studnicka-v-carlisle-fladistctapp-1990.