STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
MARLOW K. SMULOWITZ, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Question Of Great Public Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before the Court upon the State of Florida’s notice invoking the Court's discretionary jurisdiction to review the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal rendered in this cause on July 23, 1985. In its opinion the Court certified that its decision passed upon a question of great public importance. After the filing of the notice, this Court relinquished jurisdiction so that the District Court of Appeal could consider a petition for rehearing. Subsequently, the District Court of Appeal granted rehearing and rendered a decision on January 28, 1986. 482 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. App. 3 DCA 1986). The District Court of Appeal’s decision on rehearing does not certify that its decision passes upon a question of great public importance. We therefore dismiss the State’s notice invoking discretionary jurisdiction without prejudice to the right of any party to this cause to seek discretionary review of the decision of the District Court of Appeal on some other jurisdictional ground within thirty days of the date of this order. It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J.; and ADKINS, OVERTON, McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hildagarde Simmons v. State, 551 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…). The defendant’s motion to dismiss then was more correctly in the nature of a motion for reduction of the charged offense and to that extent should have been granted. See State v. Smulowitz, 482 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), pet. for rev. dism., 486 So. 2d 587 (Fla.1986) (affirming reduction of charge pursuant to (c)(4) motion). The order is hereby reversed with instructions to enter a corrected order, reducing the charge to petit theft and to make a disposition consistent with a nolo plea to that charge.…
-
Portu v. State, 654 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…n the timely filed motion for rehearing. On March 8, 1995, this court granted and filed an opinion on the appellant’s motion for clarification. The state continues to assert that we did not have jurisdiction to so act, citing to State v. Smulowitz, 486 So. 2d 587 (Fla.1986). We do not understand that decision to so hold. Instead, it appears that our jurisdiction to rule on timely filed motions does not expire until we render an order disposing of the motion(s). Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(g) s…
-
State v. Knox, 557 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…ecause it [*128] did not specifically deny any fact alleged in the subject motion; to the contrary, the material facts presented to the trial court were entirely undisputed. See State v. Smulowitz, 482 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), rev. dismissed, 486 So. 2d 587 (Fla.1987); Kuhn v. State, 439 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Holliday, 431 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), approved, 465 So. 2d 524 (Fla.1985). Finally, we find no merit in «the remaining arguments of the state. The final order of dismis…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Marlow K. Smulowitz, 482 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)