STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
KENNETH NOLAN BOYD, LOREN BRASHEAR, TIMOTHY BURNS, JOHN DUNLAP, BRUCE ENNIS, BRYAN JACOBS, STEVEN GORE, RONALD MCPEAK, LASH L. METTE, ANN ROSE, BRUCE ALLAN VANCE, SHELDON SIBLEY, WALTER SPENCER, DANIEL HEALY, GREGORY HIRD, TONI LEEDS, RICKY HILL, APPELLEES

Fla. 1st DCA | 1992-12-09
Nos. 91-3348 to 91-3353, 91-3355 to 91-3357 and 91-3359 to 91-3366
ZEHMER, ALLEN and WOLF, JJ., concur.
610 So. 2d 64 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1992) Caution
Cited by 2 cases
Topics
Suppression Of Evidence

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Suppression Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

[*65] PER CURIAM.

The state seeks to have this court exercise jurisdiction pursuant to rule 9.160, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. District courts may only exercise jurisdiction pursuant to that rule if the order being challenged is otherwise appealable to the circuit court pursuant to rule 9.140(c), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. See rule 9.030(b)(4)(B), Fla.R.App.P. The order of the county court which is being appealed held that the state could not rely on compliance with Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services’ rules to supplant the traditional predicate for the introduction of breathalyzer test results. The order in this case, as in State v. Kepke, 596 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 4th DCA1992), is not an absolute bar to admission of breathalyzer test results and, thus, since it does not suppress evidence, it is not appealable under rule 9.140(c)(1)(B), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. We, therefore, determine we are without jurisdiction. See Kepke, supra.

This case is, therefore, transferred to the circuit court for disposition where the parties may raise any issues related to the circuit court’s jurisdiction.

ZEHMER, ALLEN and WOLF, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • State v. Brigham, 694 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
    …e by providing a definition of "percent.” We conclude, however, that the order does suppress evidence and is appealable on that basis. State v. Slaney, 653 So. 2d 422 (Fla. [3d DCA] 1995); Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(b)(4)(B). We have reviewed State v. Boyd, 610 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), and State v. Kepke, 596 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), and conclude that they are distinguishable. Using the legal definition of "percent” announced by the trial court, the defendant's breath tests cannot possibly be admitted t…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw