STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
THOMAS H. SPIOCH, RESPONDENT
STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
THOMAS H. SPIOCH, RESPONDENT
802 So. 2d 1140
Florida Supreme Court (2001)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Spioch v. State, 742 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), which expressly and directly conflicts with the Third District Court of Appeal’s opinion in Vural v. State, 717 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Based on our recent decision in Seagrave v. State, 802 So. 2d 281 (Fla.2001), we quash the Fifth District’s decision in Spioch and remand for proceedings consistent with that opinion.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spioch v. State, 954 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…(Fla. 5th DCA 1999), this court reversed, agreeing with Spioch that victim injury points were improperly assessed. The State appealed to the supreme court, which reversed this court’s holding and affirmed the trial court’s sentence. State v. Spioch, 802 So. 2d 1140 (Fla.2001). In April 2003, Spioch filed the instant rule 3.850 motion alleging six grounds of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. A hearing was held that prompted the court to conclude that grounds one, two, four, five, and six should be denie…
Authorities Cited
- Seagrave v. State, 802 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 2001)
- Erol Vural v. State, 717 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Spioch v. State, 742 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)