ROBERT SMITH, 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 Florida Supreme Court dismissed a petition for certiorari as untimely filed, but suggested the petitioner could refile a motion in the trial court to preserve his rights.
No, the petition for certiorari was not timely filed because it was lodged eighty-three days after the entry of the decision sought to be reviewed.
“The petition is therefore not timely filed and must be dismissed sua sponte.”
Establishes the primary reason for dismissal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Robert Smith sought review of a decision from the District Court of Appeal, Second District. His petition for certiorari was filed eighty-t…
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 Timeliness Of Filing cases and more on FLexlaw
By petition for certiorari we are requested to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Smith v. State, 184 So.2d 458.
The petition has been lodged in this Court eighty-three days after the entry of the decision sought to be reviewed. The petition is therefore not timely filed and must be dismissed sua sponte.
An examination of the claims asserted by the petitioner suggest potential merit. The petition is therefore dismissed, but without prejudice to the petitioner to renew his motion in the trial court under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, and thereby to assert any rights available to him under our decision in Smith v. State, Fla., 197 So.2d 497, opinion filed April 12th, 1967.
It is so ordered.
THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, O’CONNELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 201 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)…Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; Raymond J. Hare, Judge. Appeal quashed. See also Fla.App., 198 So. 2d 827.…
-
Berrian v. State, 241 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. See Pensacola Lodge No. 497, B. P. O. E. v. State, 74 Fla. 498, 77 So. 613 (1917) and Smith v. State, 184 So. 2d 458 (Fla.App. 1966) cert, den. 198 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1967). JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.…
-
United States v. Lester, 785 F. Supp. 976 (S.D. Fla. 1991)…purposes of subsequent punishments); Smith v. State, 184 So.2d 458, 460 (Fla.2d D.C.A.1966) ("[A] plea of nolo contendere is construed, for all practical purposes in the case in which it is given, as a plea of guilty.”), cert. dismissed, 198 So.2d 827 (Fla.1967). See also 15 Fla.Jur.2d § 699 ("A plea of nolo contendere is construed for all practical purposes as a plea of guilty...."). 3 . The Government’s citation to the certificate purportedly "evidencing the non-restoration of the…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 197 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 1967)
- Smith v. State, 184 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)