Perpall v. State
The Third DCA reversed Perpall's convictions after the trial court denied a one-day continuance requested when a subpoenaed defense witness, who would have testified another person committed the crimes, fled the courthouse before testifying. The court held Perpall satisfied the four-part test for reversible denial of a continuance (due diligence, favorable testimony, availability/willingness, and material prejudice), and rejected the trial court's rationale that a writ of bodily attachment was required to show due diligence.
Key facts
- Perpall was charged with crimes; a subpoenaed defense witness who would have testified that another person committed the crimes fled the courthouse before testifying.
- The trial court denied Perpall's request for a one-day continuance to secure the witness's testimony.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion clarifies that Florida law does not require a defendant to seek a writ of bodily attachment as a prerequisite to demonstrating due diligence when requesting a continuance to secure a witness's trial… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.