State ex rel. Pope v. Joanas, T--250
| Decision Date | 29 May 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. T--250,T--250 |
| Citation | 278 So.2d 305 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida ex rel. Jeffrey Allen POPE, Petitioner, v. Honorable James E. JOANAS, Circuit Judge, Second Judicial Circuit In and For Leon County, Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for petitioner.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent Circuit Judge from convening the trial of a criminal case wherein petitioner is charged with the felonious sale of marijuana.
The information was filed January 26, 1973. On April 9, 1973, petitioner filed his motion to dismiss the information charging him with selling marijuana.
The ground asserted for dismissal is that the State failed to provide the defense with the identity and location of a police undercover agent who participated in and was a witness to the sale. Citing State v. Jones, 247 So.2d 342 (Fla.App.1971), petitioner contends that the agent-informer is a material witness and the State's failure to disclose requires dismissal.
Thus, asserting error in a preliminary stage of the criminal proceeding, petitioner now claims that as a result the trial court cannot proceed in bringing petitioner to trial and that a writ of prohibition will lie to restrain the exercise of jurisdiction or power by the respondent.
Petitioner misapprehends the office of an action in prohibition. The tenor of the petition is that an erroneous ruling--assuming but not deciding that the ruling complained of is erroneous--forms the basis for issuance of a writ of prohibition. However, no authority is cited in support of that thesis.
The cases are legion which hold that prohibition will not lie to test the correctness of a trial court ruling. It is an action which addresses itself to the lower court's jurisdiction or power to act, not the correctness of its rulings. Our examination of Crandall Common Law Actions, Section 473, leads us to nothing indicating that prohibition is a proper device whereby an instanter appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order in a criminal case where such order does not reach the question of jurisdiction.
Denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Gore Newspapers Co. v. Tyson
...it. The fact that a trial judge makes an erroneous order does not mean that he has acted in excess of his jurisdiction. State ex rel. Pope v. Joanas, 278 So.2d 305 (1stDCA 'The cases are legion which hold that prohibition will not lie to test the correctness of a trial court ruling.' Id. at......
-
State ex rel. English v. McCrary
...will lie in such a case. In his dissenting opinion, Judge Walden referred to a ruling of this court in State ex rel. Pope v. Joanas, Fla.App. (1st), 278 So.2d 305 (1973), where this court stated as 'The cases are legion which hold that prohibition will not lie to test the correctness of a t......
-
State ex rel. Pope v. Joanos, 43942
...Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County, Florida, Respondent. No. 43942. Supreme Court of Florida. Sept. 28, 1973. Certiorari denied. 278 So.2d 305. CARLTON, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., ...
-
Furtney v. State, 97-2027
...and Kellie A. Nielan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent. PER CURIAM. DENIED. See State ex rel. Pope v. Joanas, 278 So.2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). GRIFFIN, C.J., and PETERSON and ANTOON, JJ., ...
-
Which writ is which? A trial attorney's guide to Florida's extraordinary writs.
...Franza, 427 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1983). (32) See Strawn v. State ex rel. Anderberg, 332 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1976); State ex rel. Pope v. Joanas, 278 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1973). (33) See Carcaise v. Durden, 382 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1980). (34) See City of Miami Beach v. Mr. Samuel's,......