JOSEPH INNES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1992-05-06
No. 91-02666
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur., PARKER, J., concurs specially.
597 So. 2d 966 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1992) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Davis v. State, 528 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 536 So. 2d 243 (Fla.1988). We recognize that our decision in Davis is in conflict with Lang v. State, 566 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur. PARKER, J., concurs specially.

Concurrence
PARKER, Judge,

PARKER, Judge,

concurring specially.

I concur with the majority. But for this court’s opinion in Davis, I would reverse this case because the record fails to show that Innes waived the trial court’s required findings under Chapter 39, Florida Statutes. See Evans v. State, 594 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Innes v. State, 620 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 1993)
    …[*1234] PER CURIAM. We have for review Innes v. State, 597 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), in which the district court asserted conflict with Lang v. State, 566 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We addressed the issue in this case in Sirmons v. State, 620 So. 2d 124…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw