STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
ANTHONY DEAN IAFORNARO, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a district court's dismissal of charges against Iafornaro for driving under the influence, holding that he was under arrest when he fled the officer, making his case indistinguishable from the controlling precedent in State v. Ramsey.
Iafornaro was under arrest at the time he fled, as established by the officer's report included in the stipulated statement. The facts of this case are indistinguishable from State v. Ramsey, which controls the disposition.
[1] A stipulated statement used in lieu of a trial record on appeal may properly include exhibits from the lower tribunal necessary for a determination of the issues.
[2] A prior supreme court decision that quashed a district court of appeal's decision controls subsequent cases with indistinguishable facts.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“This case is before us because it expressly and directly conflicts with State v. Akers, 367 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). We have jurisdiction.”
Establishes the Supreme Court's jurisdictional basis to review the district court decision based on conflicting precedent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIafornaro was stopped by an officer who suspected driving under the influence. The officer placed Iafornaro under arrest as documented in the officer'…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conflict Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
ADKINS, Justice.
This case is before us because it expressly and directly conflicts with State v. Akers, 367 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The Fifth District, 447 So. 2d 961, affirmed the trial court’s granting of Iafornaro’s motion to dismiss, citing its decision in Ramsey v. State, 442 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). We quashed the Ramsey decision in State v. Ramsey, 475 So. 2d 671 (Fla.1985). In Ramsey we approved of the decision in State v. Akers, 367 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
Only one of respondent’s claims merits discussion; otherwise, this case could be summarily decided on the basis of Ramsey. Iafornaro argues that he was not under arrest at the time he fled. A transcript of this case was not prepared in the trial court. Therefore, the parties, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(a)(3) prepared a stipulated statement to be substituted for the record for use on appeal. The stipulated statement does not state that Iafornaro was placed under arrest. Respondent claims this is due to “supplemental knowledge” on the part of the assistant state attorney that “the officer had not ‘placed the appellant under arrest/ but had merely told him to place his hands on the car.”
However, the officer’s report, which was treated as an exhibit in the lower court, was included as a part of the stipulated statement. The officer’s report stated that he placed Iafornaro under arrest for driving while under the influence of alcohol. The inclusion of this report was entirely proper since Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(a)(3) provides, inter alia:
(3) Stipulated Statement. The parties may prepare a stipulated statement showing how the issues to be presented arose and were decided in the lower tribunal, attaching a copy of the order to be reviewed and as much of the record in the lower tribunal as is necessary to a determination of the issues to be presented.
(emphasis added).
It is clear from the posture of this case on appeal that the trial court determined this issue adversely to respondent, and we accept that determination for the purposes of this appeal.
Having determined that Iafornaro was under arrest, the facts of this case are indistinguishable from the facts of Ramsey and Ramsey controls.
Therefore, we quash the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal on the authority of State v. Ramsey, 475 So. 2d 671 (Fla.1985), and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur. BOYD, C.J., dissents with an opinion.
BOYD, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissent to the Court’s decision in State v. Ramsey, 475 So. 2d 671 (Fla.1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Ramsey, 475 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Akers, 367 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Wright v. State, 447 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Barber v. State, 442 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)