Van Poyck v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Van Poyck v. State

54 So. 3d 567, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1018, 2011 WL 409071

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 2, 2011

DocketNo. 3D10-2115

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 54 So. 3d 567 (Van Poyck v. State) 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

Van Poyck v. State, 54 So. 3d 567, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1018, 2011 WL 409071 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of an order denying a “Petition Seeking Compensation for Wrongful Incarceration.” The trial court dismissed the petition stating that Jeffrey H. Van Poyck had to initiate the application process for compensation with the Department of Legal Affairs pursuant to section 961.06(2). Thus, the petition was filed in the wrong jurisdiction. However, before such a petition may be filed, the petitioner must first establish that he was a “wrongfully incarcerated person” by filing a petition “with the original sentencing court” pursuant to section 961.03. Although the caption of the petition improperly delineated the relief sought, in the “wherefore” clause, Van Poyck properly requested a finding of whether he was a “wrongfully incarcerated person.” We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to make such a determination.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of an order denying a “Petition Seeking Compensation for Wrongful Incarceration.” The trial court dismissed the petition stating that Jeffrey H. Van Poyck had to initiate the application process for compensation with the Department of Legal Affairs pursuant to section 961.06(2). Thus, the petition was filed in the wrong jurisdiction. However, before such a petition may be filed, the petitioner must first establish that he was a “wrongfully incarcerated person” by filing a petition “with the original sentencing court” pursuant to section 961.03. Although the caption of the petition improperly delineated the relief sought, in the “wherefore” clause, Van Poyck properly requested a finding of whether he was a “wrongfully incarcerated person.” We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to make such a determination.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 So. 3d 567, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1018, 2011 WL 409071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-poyck-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack