You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

PETER JOSEPH ROSATO, JR. v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Citation: Not availableDocket: 17-4367

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; May 11, 2018; Florida; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves an appeal by Peter J. Rosato, Jr. against the State of Florida, designated as Case No. 2D17-4367, filed in the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. The opinion was issued on May 11, 2018, following an appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County, presided over by Judge Philip J. Federico. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision with all three judges—Casanueva, Crenshaw, and Badalamenti—concurring. The ruling remains subject to the expiration of the timeframe for filing a rehearing motion.

Legal Issues Addressed

Affirmation of Lower Court's Decision

Application: The appellate court affirmed the decision made by the Circuit Court for Pinellas County.

Reasoning: The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision with all three judges—Casanueva, Crenshaw, and Badalamenti—concurring.

Appeal Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2)

Application: The case was appealed under this specific rule, which pertains to certain post-conviction relief appeals in Florida.

Reasoning: The opinion was issued on May 11, 2018, following an appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County, presided over by Judge Philip J. Federico.

Concurrence of Judges in Appellate Decision

Application: All judges involved in the appellate decision were in agreement with the affirmation of the lower court's ruling.

Reasoning: The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision with all three judges—Casanueva, Crenshaw, and Badalamenti—concurring.

Timeframe for Filing a Rehearing Motion

Application: The ruling is still subject to change if a rehearing motion is filed within the allowable timeframe.

Reasoning: The ruling remains subject to the expiration of the timeframe for filing a rehearing motion.