Smith v. State
Decision Date | 03 June 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 6961,6961 |
Citation | 187 So.2d 61 |
Parties | Earnest Donald SMITH, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
C. J. Abernathy, of Jenkins & Abernathy, St. Petersburg, for petitioner.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for respondent.
Petitioner Smith, defendant below, filed a petition for certiorari seeking to review an order denying a motion for continuance, filed by newly secured attorneys, in the first degree murder case wherein a new trial had been granted by the court below.
The petitioner was tried and convicted in August, 1965. A motion for a new trial, filed by his privately retained counsel, was granted on January 21, 1966. The court set the new trial for January 31, 1966. The attorney then representing the defendant, advised the court that he had not been paid for a new trial. The court determined that the petitioner was insolvent and then appointed the attorney who had represented the defendant in the first trial, an experienced lawyer of St. Petersburg, Honorable James F. Snelling, to represent him at the second trial and for him to be paid by the State.
On January 28, 1966, the firm of Jenkins and Abernathy filed a notice of appearance in the case and filed a motion for continuance, which was denied. This is the order sought to be reviewed by certiorari. In addition to the petition for writ of certiorari, an appeal has been filed in this court to review the judgment of the circuit court bearing date February 18, 1966.
We shall not discuss the merits vel non of the motion for a continuance as we are of the view that under the factual situation in this case certiorari will have to be denied. The motion for continuance was, in effect, an interlocutory order and any error that might have been committed by the trial judge can be properly reviewed in the appeal pending in the case.
In the case of Tart v. State, 1928, 96 Fla. 77, 117 So. 698, our Supreme Court held that certiorari would not lie to review correctness of a trial court's order striking the defendant's pleas in bar. Pleas involved were those of autrefois acquit. In its opinion, the Supreme Court stated:
.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Lozano
...case, as well. See Tart v. State, 96 Fla. 77, 117 So. 698 (1928); Mingle v. State, 429 So.2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Smith v. State, 187 So.2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). The Third District's reversal of Lozano's Dade County convictions shows that denial of a motion for change of venue, if erro......
-
Duncan v. Pullum
...appeal and certiorari. Rules 4.2 and 4.5, Fla.App.Rules, 31 F.S.A. In a recent case dealing with this subject, Smith v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 61, we quoted from Girten v. Bouvier, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 'Review other than by appeal from a final judgment is limited. In an action at......
-
Genuine Parts Co. v. Parsons
...do not often give rise to the issuance of a writ of certiorari because they do not generally create irreparable harm. See Smith v. State, 187 So.2d 61 (Fla.2d DCA 1966). We therefore frequently dismiss petitions seeking relief from such orders. SSJ Mercy Health Sys., Inc. v. Posey, 756 So.2......
-
Harris v. State, 1D00-3259.
...this state. Tart v. State, 96 Fla. 77, 117 So. 698 (1928); see also Mingle v. State, 429 So.2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Smith v. State, 187 So.2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); Banks v. State, 130 So.2d 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961). Second, extended to its logical conclusion, adoption of this reasoning w......