ARTIS BANKS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Defendant Banks sought review by certiorari of an order denying his motion to withdraw a guilty plea and substitute a not guilty plea. The court held that certiorari is not the proper remedy because appeal from the final judgment provides an adequate alternative remedy.
Certiorari is not available to review such an order because appeal from the final judgment provides a full, complete, and adequate remedy. Motions to vacate a guilty plea are addressed to the trial court's sound judicial discretion and are properly reviewable by appeal from the final judgment.
“A motion to vacate a plea of guilty and substitute therefor a plea of not guilty, whether entered before or after judgment, is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and an order granting or denying such motion is properly reviewable by appeal from the final judgment entered in the case.”
Establishes that the proper appellate remedy is appeal from final judgment, not certiorari
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Banks was convicted based on a guilty plea. He filed a motion in the trial court to set aside the judgment of conviction, withdraw his guilt…
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 Discretionary Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant seeks review by certiorari of an order denying his motion to set aside a judgment of conviction and permit him to withdraw a plea of guilty, submitting therefor a plea of. not guilty, and be tried by a jury on the charge set forth in the information filed against him.
The State has moved to dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari on the ground that such procedure is not available to review the type of order in question.
The appellate rules relating to appeals in criminal cases provide that on appeal the appellate court shall review all rulings and orders appearing in the appeal record insofar as it is necessary to do so in order to pass upon the grounds of the appeal.1 A motion to vacate a plea of guilty and substitute therefor a plea of not guilty, whether entered before or after judgment, is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court,2 and an order granting or denying such motion is properly reviewable by appeal from the final judgment entered in the case.3 The law is too well settled to admit of any doubt that a writ of certiorari, being discretionary in character, will not be granted if the law affords a full, complete and adequate remedy by appeal to review the judgment, order or decree sought to *74be quashed.4 The principle is equally settled in this state that a petition for writ of certiorari, improvidently filed, may not be treated and considered by the appellate court as an appeal. Under such circumstances the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review the order in question, and has no discretion but to dismiss the proceedings.5
The motion of the State' to dismiss the . petition for writ of certiorari filed in this icause is granted.
STURGIS and. CARROLL, DONALD IC, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roberts v. State, 142 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…him for the past couple of years. He’s not a man who’s been continuously employed. He’s without work; he stays around houses of ill repute; he wanders around from place to place.” . Section 909.13, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. . Banks v. State, Fla.App.1961, 130 So. 2d 73; Asbey v. State, Fla.App.1958, 102 So. 2d 407; La Barbera v. State, Fla. 1953, 63 So. 2d 654. . Simmons v. State, Fla.App.1961, 132 So. 2d 235; Fryer v. State, Fla.App.1958, 102 So. 2d 41; Asbey v. State, supra; Collins v. State, Fla.1955, 83 So. 2…
-
Harris v. State, 766 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…t, it appears to be contrary to the established law of this state. Tart v. State, 96 Fla. 77, 117 So. 698 (1928); see [*1241] 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 would open the door for interlocutory review of denial of motions to dismiss (and other potentially dispositive defense motions) in all criminal and involunt…
Authorities Cited
- The Pullman Co. v. Fleishel, 101 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Codomo v. Shaw, 99 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1958)
- La Barbera v. State, 63 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1953)
- Fort v. Anne Burton Fort, 104 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- City OF Fort Lauderdale v. Cavender, 102 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Ward v. State, 156 Fla. 185 (Fla. 1945)