From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pierre v. State

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Mar 18, 2020
301 So. 3d 379 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)

Opinion

No. 3D20-353

03-18-2020

Roseline PIERRE, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and John Eddy Morrison, Assistant Public Defender, for petitioner. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.


Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and John Eddy Morrison, Assistant Public Defender, for petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Petition denied. See Santopolo v. State, 443 So. 2d 1059, 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (holding that petitioner was not entitled to an adversary preliminary hearing, despite State not filing information or indictment within twenty-one days from date of arrest or service of capias, because petitioner received all available relief afforded by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.133(b)(1) upon his release from custody); Migliore v. City of Lauderhill, 415 So. 2d 62, 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (holding that mandamus is not available to require the performance of a futile act).


Summaries of

Pierre v. State

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Mar 18, 2020
301 So. 3d 379 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)
Case details for

Pierre v. State

Case Details

Full title:Roseline Pierre, Petitioner, v. The State of Florida, Respondent.

Court:Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Date published: Mar 18, 2020

Citations

301 So. 3d 379 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)