Studnicka v. Carlisle

George STUDNICKA, Petitioner, v. James T. CARLISLE, et al., Respondents.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 5, 1990.

Rehearing and Clarification Denied October 18, 1990.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1990-09-05

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 2003

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“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.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 846 So. 2d 472 - Logan v. State

Relies on 365 So. 2d 381 - Goode v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1990-09-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1George Studnicka, West Palm Beach, pro se.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Carol Cobourn Asbury, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent, James T. Carlisle.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4The 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.

¶5GLICKSTEIN, DELL and POLEN, JJ., concur.