 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Caswell10/31/2003
J., dissenting.
As the majority acknowledges, we may grant certiorari relief from an appellate decision of the circuit court only in a case in which the circuit court order violates a "clearly established principle of law." Because the circuit court order in the present case does not violate a clearly established principle of law, I would deny certiorari relief.
The legal issue decided by the circuit court was whether revocation or suspension of a Florida driver's license resulting from a plea to a driving offense is a direct consequence of the plea. The only law directly addressing the question is case law from the Fourth District holding that revocation or suspension of a license in these circumstances is a direct consequence. The circuit court was compelled to follow this case law because, in the absence of inter-district conflict, district court decisions bind all Florida trial courts. See Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992). This requirement applies even to circuit courts sitting in review of county court decisions. See Harris v. State, 773 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). The circuit court's order in the present case was therefore entered in accordance with this absolute requirement.
Although, in light of decisions such as Pardo, the circuit court had no discretion to decide this case other than it did, it likely drew considerable confidence in the ultimate correctness of its ruling from the fact that the leading case standing for the controlling legal proposition, Daniels v. State, 716 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), has been cited without criticism by every appellate court in Florida. See, e.g., Major v. State, 814 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2002); Moore v. State, 831 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Watrous v. State, 793 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Howard v. State, 762 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Boutwell v. State, 776 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Indeed, the supreme court has favorably quoted from Daniels at considerable length, and has indicated that Daniels contains a correct recitation of the test to be applied in determining whether a consequence of a plea is direct or indirect. See Major v. State, 814 So. 2d at 429, 431.
Notwithstanding all of the foregoing, the majority holds that the circuit court violated a clearly established principle of law when it entered an order fully consistent with the only law directly addressing the issue presented. I respectfully disagree and therefore dissent from the majority opinion.
Page 1 2 3 Florida DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|