HOMER RONALD EARNEST, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Fla. 1st DCA | 1971-10-21
No. P-96
Johnson, J., Spector, C.J., Wigginton, J.
253 So. 2d 458 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1971) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

The court denied a petition for certiorari seeking to suppress evidence from a marijuana possession charge, holding that the proper remedy is direct appeal after final judgment rather than interlocutory review.

Holding

A motion to suppress evidence in a criminal case should be reviewed on direct appeal after final judgment, not by interlocutory certiorari review, when an adequate remedy exists.

Headnotes

[1] A motion to suppress evidence in a criminal case must be reviewed on direct appeal after final judgment rather than by interlocutory certiorari when an adequate appellate…

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 intelligence
Key Quotes

“Generally speaking, the discretionary writ of certiorari will be granted to review an interlocutory order (not otherwise reviewable by interlocutory appeal) only in those cases in which it clearly appears that there is no full, adequate and complete remedy available to the petitioner by appeal after final judgment.”

Court explaining the standard for granting certiorari to review interlocutory orders
Facts & Procedural History

Earnest was charged with marijuana possession and moved to suppress evidence seized from his boat, alleging unreasonable search and seizure. The trial…

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.

Topics
Appellate Remedies Possession Of Marijuana Unreasonable Searches And Seizures Interlocutory Orders

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
JOHNSON, Judge.

JOHNSON, Judge.

After his arraignment and preliminary hearing on charges of possession of marijuana, petitioner moved to suppress as evidence all tangible items of property and other evidence seized by the State or its agents from petitioner on his boat, alleging as grounds therefor that said evidence was the result of an unreasonable search and seizure. The trial judge denied the motion to suppress and this petition for a writ of certiorari seeks to have said order of denial reviewed.

Before proceeding to the merits of the petition, the State contended that the admissibility of the challenged evidence should more appropriately be challenged by direct appeal, if and when the petitioner is convicted. We agree.

*459As stated in Simpson v. Broward County, 241 So.2d 193, 194 (Fla.App. 4th, 1970):

“Generally speaking, the discretionary writ of certiorari will be granted to review an interlocutory order (not otherwise reviewable by interlocutory appeal) only in those cases in which it clearly appears that there is no full, adequate and complete remedy available to the petitioner by appeal after final judgment.” (Citations omitted)..

Petitioner has not demonstrated that he will be denied a full, adequate and complete remedy by appeal after final judgment.

For the reasons hereinabove stated, we hereby deny the petition for a writ of cer-tiorari, but said denial is without prejudice to the right of petitioner to seek appellate review of the order challenged herein on appeal from the final judgment, should he so desire.

Petition denied.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON, J„ concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • State v. Morey, 339 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
    …d should not be granted merely to relieve the petitioner who seeks the writ from the expense and inconvenience of a trial, Wright v. Sterling Drugs, 287 So. 2d 376 (Fla.2d DCA 1973); Smith v. State, 187 So. 2d 61 (Fla.2d DCA 1966); Earnest v. State, 253 So. 2d 458 (Fla.1st DCA 1971).1 Morey and King’s Gate did not demonstrate that the county court had exceeded its jurisdiction or departed from the essential requirements of the law or that, if convicted, that appeal would not afford each defendant a proper rem…
  • Segura v. State, 272 So. 3d 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw