From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Studnicka v. Carlisle

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Oct 18, 1990
567 So. 2d 17 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Opinion

No. 90-0820.

September 5, 1990. Rehearing and Clarification Denied October 18, 1990.

Petition for writ of prohibition.

George Studnicka, West Palm Beach, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Carol Cobourn Asbury, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent, James T. Carlisle.


The petition for writ of prohibition is denied. Petitioners who are represented by counsel should file pleadings only through counsel. A defendant who has court-appointed counsel may not act as co-counsel as a matter of right. Goode v. State, 365 So.2d 381 (Fla. 1978). Nonetheless, we have considered the petition for writ of prohibition on the merits, and deny the petition on each point raised. As to the issue of proper venue, our denial is without prejudice to address this issue in the trial court.

GLICKSTEIN, DELL and POLEN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Studnicka v. Carlisle

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Oct 18, 1990
567 So. 2d 17 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)
Case details for

Studnicka v. Carlisle

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE STUDNICKA, PETITIONER, v. JAMES T. CARLISLE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Oct 18, 1990

Citations

567 So. 2d 17 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Citing Cases

Prevatt v. State

It appears that petitioner is represented by counsel, as he states in his petition that his present…

Logan v. State

See also Lewis v. State, 766 So.2d 288, 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) ("A criminal defendant has no Sixth Amendment…