If it's after Wednesday, then it's time for 3RD DCA ROUNDUP.
Judge Thomas was reversed and the case remanded for discharge based on a PCA opinion which succinctly stated that there was no founded suspicion much less probable cause to justify the stop, search and seizure. The decision in Thames v. State is here.
Query: If the police conduct was so egregious, why didn't the 3rd DCA include at least a modicum of the facts, so we could use the case in subsequent proceedings? This decision has NO precedental value because nobody can tell the circumstances of the stop. Isn't precedent what our entire legal system is based on?
Compare Thames with the decision in State v. Reyes, here, in which the court affirmed the suppression of evidence obtained in a pat down search, but reversed the suppression of other evidence obtained after a valid stop. The decision lists the facts and applies the law in a way in which this case can be used again and again.
What's up 3rd DCA? Why do we get the facts in some cases but not others?
WALL OF SHAME.
Judge Marissa Tinkler Mendez joins our wall of shame for denying a Rule 3 without attaching record excerpts conclusively showing the appellant is not entitled to relief.
The same old decision for the millionth time is here in Fernandez v. State.
As a former appellate lawyer who clearly knows better, we say to Judge Mendez, who otherwise is doing a great job in the REFGJB, double shame.
See You In Court, reading those FLWs.