APRIL CALLINS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 court held that a defendant cannot seek certiorari review of a pretrial order denying a motion for a statement of particulars because any alleged error can be reviewed on direct appeal from a conviction.
[1] A petition for writ of certiorari will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction when the petitioner has an adequate remedy by appeal.
[2] A defendant may challenge an interlocutory order on appeal from a conviction.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State charged April Callins with felony driving with a suspended license. Callins moved for a statement of particulars, which the trial court deni…
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 Right To Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
April Callins has filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking to quash a trial court order denying her motion for a statement of particulars. Because this court is without jurisdiction, we dismiss the petition.
By an amended information, the state has charged Callins with felony driving with a suspended license, contrary to sections 322.34(5) and 322.264, Florida Statutes (1999). Callins moved for a statement of particulars under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.140(n). The trial court denied the motion.
As her basis for jurisdiction, Callins cites Bartlett v. Hamwi, 626 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Bartlett is distinguishable, since it involved a non-party witness’s request for certiorari review of an order requiring the witness to provide hair samples. In that case, it was obvious that the non-party witness did not have a right to appellate review. See Katlein v. State, 731 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (involving disclosure of witness’s mental health and substance abuse records).
In State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla.1988), the supreme court recognized the state’s right to petition for certiorari to review certain pretrial orders in criminal cases. The court reasoned that an appellate court’s authority to entertain some state petitions in criminal cases is important to the fair administration of criminal justice. See id. at 253. Without such review, the state would be totally deprived of the right of appellate review of orders which effectively negate its ability to prosecute. See id.
Significantly, the supreme court noted in Pettis that a defendant does not suffer the same prejudice, because a defendant always has a right of appeal from a conviction in which he or she can attack any interlocutory order. See id. at 253 n. 2. If convicted in this case, Callins can attack the interlocutory order in her appeal. Thus, because there is no irreparable injury to the petitioner that cannot be corrected on final appeal, we dismiss the petition. See Bared & Co. v. McGuire, 670 So. 2d 153, 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
DELL, GROSS, and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Duckworth v. State, 923 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…er on review would allow the state to obtain. Due to the privacy considerations inherent in a person’s medical information, plenary appeal will not provide an adequate remedy. For that reason, we reject the state’s argument, citing Callins v. State, 747 So. 2d 453, 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), that Duckworth did not make a specific showing of irreparable harm because a criminal defendant always has the right to appeal from a conviction, in which any interlocutory order may be attacked. We recognize it is reasona…
-
Denver Ivan Wilson v. State, 913 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…fered an irreparable injury that cannot be remedied adequately on a plenary appeal following the entry of a final judgment. Id. A criminal accused can always attack an interlocutory order by an appeal from a judgment and sentence. Collins v. State, 747 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), provides a close analog to the present case. There, the accused sought certiorari review of an order denying his motion for a statement of particulars. Our sister court concluded that there was no irreparable injury in that circ…
-
Baker v. State, 230 So. 3d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…the Court declines appellant’s request to review the order by petition for writ of certiorari because appellant has failed to demonstrate that the ruling results in harm that cannot be remedied on appeal from a final judgment. Cf. Callins v. State, 747 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR. .…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1988)
- The Bared & Co., Inc. v. McGUIRE, 670 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Bartlett v. Hamwi, 626 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Katlein v. State of Fla. & Jeffrey Weaver, 731 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)