FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF THE LOTTERY, PETITIONER,
v.
GTECH CORPORATION, RESPONDENT; AUTOMATED WAGERING INTERNATIONAL, INC., PETITIONER, V. GTECH CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
PER CURIAM
We initially accepted jurisdiction to review a decision of the First District Court of Appeal. See art. V § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Subsequently, for purposes of oral argument, we consolidated for review two cases that arose out of Florida Department of Lottery v. Gtech Corp., 816 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), on motion for certification, 816 So. 2d at 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), wherein the district court certified two questions to be of great public importance. Upon reflection, and further consideration, we now conclude that review was improvidently granted. Accordingly, this review proceeding is dismissed.
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 (32 total)
-
Bradley v. State, 33 So. 3d 664 (Fla. 2010)…006) (determining that defense counsel reasonably chose not to present certain mental health records via testimony of a psychologist and instead presented the information through sympathetic testimony of defendant’s family members); Gaskin v. State, 822 So. 2d 1243, 1248 (Fla.2002) (“Trial counsel will not be held to be deficient when she makes a reasonable strategic decision to not present mental mitigation testimony during the penalty phase because it could open the door to other damaging testimony.”); Ruthe…
-
Jones v. State, 998 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2008)…idering the alternatives. Cf. Bowles v. State 979 So. 2d 182, 188 (Fla.2008) (finding that trial counsel was not deficient for failing to present an expert to testify to mental mitigation because the decision was reasonable) (citing Gaskin v. State, 822 So. 2d 1243, 1248 (Fla.2002) (“Trial counsel will not be held to be deficient when she makes a reasonable strategic decision to not present mental mitigation testimony during the penalty phase because it could open the door to other damaging testimony.”)). Beca…
-
Peede v. State, 955 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2007)…emotional disturbance mitigator applied in Peede’s case, and the trial court agreed. The fact that Peede produced more favorable expert testimony at his evidentiary hearing is not reason enough to deem trial counsel ineffective. See Gaskin v. State, 822 So. 2d 1243, 1250 (Fla.2002) (“[C]ounsel’s reasonable mental health investigation is not rendered incompetent ‘merely because the defendant has now secured the testimony of a more favorable mental health expert.’ ”) (quoting Asay v. State, 769 So. 2d 974, 986 (…
Previewing 3 of 32 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gaines v. State, 816 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)