STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
GEORGE WILLIAM THAYER, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The holdings in Jones, State v. G.P., and State v. C.C. do not preclude the state from seeking certiorari review of non-appealable interlocutory orders in criminal cases where the state demonstrates a clear departure from essential requirements of law.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal certified a question of great public importance regarding the state's ability to seek certiorari review of interlo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Interlocutory Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review State v. Thayer, 489 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified the following question as one of great public importance:
DO THE HOLDINGS IN JONES v. STATE, 477 So. 2d 566 (Fla.1985), STATE v. G.P., 476 So. 2d 1272 (Fla.1985) AND STATE v. C.C., 476 So. 2d 144 (FLA.1985) PRECLUDE THE STATE FROM SEEKING CERTIORARI REVIEW OF NON-APPEALABLE INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS IN A CRIMINAL CASE WHERE THE STATE HAS DEMONSTRATED A CLEAR DEPARTURE FROM THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW?
489 So. 2d at 783. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla.Const. We recently answered the question in the negative in State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla.1988). Accordingly, we quash the decision below and remand for proceedings consistent with our decision in Pettis.
It is so ordered.
MCDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Johnson, 520 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1988)…URE FROM THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW? 489 So. 2d at 783. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla.Const. We recently answered the question in the negative in State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla.1988). Accordingly, as in State v. Thayer, 520 So. 2d 571 (Fla.1988), we quash the decision below and remand for proceedings consistent with our decision in Pettis. It is so ordered. MCDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE…
-
State v. Thayer, 528 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…motion in limine in this case) which departs from the essential requirements of law and for which the state would have no other avenue of review. Subsequently, this court’s decision in Thayer was quashed on the basis of Pettis. See State v. Thayer, 520 So. 2d 571 (Fla.1988). We were thus directed to consider the merits of the petition by certiorari. We have done so and have concluded the trial court was without authority to order the questionnaire. In agreeing with the majority, I repeat my observation in th…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1988)
- State v. C.C., 476 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1985)
- Hollis Jones v. State, 477 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. G.P., 476 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1985)
- Charles v. State, 489 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- State v. Thayer, 489 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)