BRIAN KEITH BLADES, PETITIONER,
v.
MARCHELLE HENRY, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES ALFRED BLADES, JR., DECEASED, AND ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR DAUGHTER CRYSTAL SHARI BLADES, RESPONDENTS
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.
Petition for certiorari dismissed as untimely where petitioner sought protective order based on Fifth Amendment privilege in wrongful death suit after criminal acquittal, having previously filed and lost the same motion months earlier.
A petitioner cannot evade certiorari time requirements by filing a second motion on the same issue previously determined.
[1] A petitioner cannot circumvent the time requirements for filing a petition for certiorari by filing successive motions addressing the same issue previously determined by…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBlades was acquitted of criminal charges arising from an incident and was then sued in a wrongful death action; he sought a protective order based on …
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 Motion For Protective Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner is the defendant in a wrongful death suit. He was prosecuted on criminal charges arising out of the same incident, but was granted a judgment of acquittal. He seeks a writ of certiorari from an order denying his motion for protective order based on his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Although he has already been prosecuted on criminal charges arising out of the same incident and granted a judgment of acquittal, he argues that he still has exposure to other criminal charges.
The petition states that it is being taken from two orders, one entered on June 23, 1998 and the other entered on July 16, 1998, and is timely as to both of those orders. The respondent points out; however, that the petitioner filed his first motion for protective order based on the privilege against self-incrimination on February 2, 1998, and that his motion was denied on March 5, 1998. The petition is therefore untimely. Bensonhurst Drywall, Inc. v. Ledesma, 583 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)(petitioner cannot evade the time requirements for filing a petition for certiorari by filing a second motion addressed to the same issue determined by an earlier order).
We therefore dismiss the petition.
KLEIN, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Travis, 971 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…t the petitioner seeks review of here) by filing a petition for writ of certio-rari addressed to an order on a motion for rehearing of an earlier non-final order that the petitioner failed to challenge in a timely manner. See, e.g., Blades v. Henry, 720 So. 2d 323, 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding petitioner cannot circumvent time requirements for seeking certiorari review of an order denying a motion for a protective order by filing a successive motion seeking the same relief and seeking certiorari review th…
-
Lorene Murphy v. Spinoso (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)…a second motion directed at the very same issue. See Decktight Roofing Services, Inc. v. Amwest Sur. Ins., 841 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Bensonhurst Drywall, Inc. v. Ledesma, 583 So. 2d 1094, 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Blades v. Henry, 720 So. 2d 323, 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The filing of successive motions does not revive or extend the time to file a petition for writ of certiorari. Dismissed.…
Authorities Cited
- Bensonhurst Drywall, Inc. v. Ledesma, 583 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)