DAVID SIERRA, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Felony Driving While License Suspended cases and more on FLexlaw
On Motion to Clarify or Correct Opinion
PER CURIAM.
We grant the Motion to Clarify or Correct Opinion, withdraw our previously issued opinion and substitute the following in its place.
The petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent the lower court from proceeding with a criminal prosecution on the charge of felony driving while license suspended. The suspension stems from several unpaid civil driving infractions. The petitioner took advantage of the procedures outlined in section 318.14(10)(a), Florida Statutes, paid his fines and secured the reinstatement of his license prior to his arraignment on the felony charges. In accordance with Janos v. State, 763 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), the trial court should have granted the petitioner’s motion to dismiss the felony charges, as the state concedes. Janos is directly on point and thus we grant the petition and remand the case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with Janos. We withhold issuance of a formal writ in full confidence the lower court will comply with the mandate of this Court and the holding of Janos.
Petition granted.
WARNER, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ramad Terry v. State, 970 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…order. “When a trial court denies a rule 3.850 motion without an evidentiary hearing, it must ‘either state its rationale in its decision or attach those specific parts of the record that refute each claim presented in the motion.’” Smith v. State, 956 So. 2d 1266, 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting Anderson v. State, 627 So. 2d 1170, 1171 (Fla.1993)). As the trial court’s order in this case does neither, we summarily reverse and remand the trial court’s order denying appellant’s rule 3.850 motion for the atta…
-
Holley v. State, 67 So. 3d 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…e motion.” Anderson v. State, 627 So. 2d 1170, 1171 (Fla.1993) (citing Hoffman v. State, 571 So. 2d 449, 450 (Fla.1990)). See also Walkes v. State, 9 So. 3d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Terry v. State, 970 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Smith v. State, 956 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). The trial court’s order in this case did neither. We therefore summarily reverse and remand for the attachment of portions of the record which conclusively refute appellant’s claims, an evidentiary hearing, or a statement of the…
-
Walkes v. State, 9 So. 3d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…refute the claims. The court also did not state any reason for the denial in its order. As a result, we must reverse and remand for further review of the motion. See, e.g., Terry v. State,: 970 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (citing Smith v. State, 956 So. 2d 1266, 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)); see also Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d); Hayes v. State, 958 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Dieudonne v. State, 958 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Reversed and remanded. GROSS, C.J., WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Janos v. State, 763 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)