AMY HABIE, PETITIONER,
v.
MICHAEL PAUL SHIENVOLD, ETC., RESPONDENT
AMY HABIE, PETITIONER,
MICHAEL PAUL SHIENVOLD, ETC., RESPONDENT
638 So. 2d 22
Florida Supreme Court (1994)
Caution
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
A. Matthew Miller, Hollywood, for Amy Habie.
Upon consideration of Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate Sua Sponte Order of Dismissal or, in the Alternative, Motion for Reconsideration, it is ordered that the Motion to Vacate Sua Sponte Order of Dismissal is granted. The Order of this Court dated February 22, 1993, dismissing the above cause is vacated and the above case is reinstated.
Respondent shall have to and including May 3, 1994, in which to serve its jurisdictional brief.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Childers v. State, 713 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…ve the statute of limitations defense, we conclude that the court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on time-barred lesser included offenses. Neither Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 100 S.Ct. 2382, 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980), nor Eaddy v. State, 638 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1994), apply because appellant expressly opted not to waive the statute of limitations defense. Next, we address whether the court erred in refusing to grant appellant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal on the issue of premeditation. A motio…
-
Cartagena v. State, 125 So. 3d 919 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…of conviction.” Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 633-34, 100 S.Ct. 2382, 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980) (quoting Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205, 212-13, 93 S.Ct. 1993, 36 L.Ed.2d 844 (1973)) (emphasis added) (footnote omitted); see also Eaddy v. State, 638 So. 2d 22, 25 (Fla.1994) (recognizing that this “Hob-son’s choice” creates enhanced risk of conviction for defendant and holding that, in a death penalty case, defendant was entitled to have jury instructed on lesser-included offenses of first-degree murder c…1 / 2
-
Webb v. State, 724 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…l and previously appellant objected to any reference to acts which took place after the expiration of the statute of limitations and never gave any indication that he wanted to do anything but to have his right under the statute. See Eaddy v. State, 638 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1994) (a defendant’s mere request for jury instructions on time-barred lesser included offenses is not an effective waiver of the statute of limitations defense); Tucker v. State, 459 So. 2d 306 (Fla.1984) (same). Perhaps appellant may seek rel…