LAWANDA BYRD, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's opinion declaring a statute invalid was a concurring opinion of one judge, not the actual decision of the three-judge panel.
A concurring opinion by one judge declaring a statute invalid does not constitute a district court decision sufficient to invoke the Supreme Court's mandatory jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution.
[1] A concurring opinion by a single judge on a district court panel declaring a statute invalid does not constitute a district court decision within the meaning of article V…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the opinion declaring the statute invalid was not the actual decision of the district court; it was the concurring opinion of one judge on the panel.”
The Court explained why it lacked jurisdiction to review the case.
Byrd petitioned for review of a district court decision in Byrd v. State, where the trial court denied her motion to dismiss. One judge on the three-j…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mandatory Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We originally accepted jurisdiction to review Byrd v. State, 834 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(1) and 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution, on the ground that the district court’s decision declared invalid a state statute and construed a provision of the state constitution. What we did not recognize at the time, and what neither party brought to our attention, was that the opinion declaring the statute invalid was signed by only one judge on the district court’s three-judge panel; the other two judges concurred in the result (affirming the trial court’s denial of Byrd’s motion to dismiss) but did not join in the opinion. Thus, the opinion declaring the statute invalid was not the actual decision of the district court; it was the concurring opinion of one judge on the panel. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const, (providing this Court with mandatory jurisdiction to hear appeals from “decisions of district courts of appeal declaring invalid a state statute”); cf. Jenkins v. State, 385 So. 2d 1356, 1359 (Fla.1980) (“[T]he language and expressions found in a dissenting or concurring opinion cannot support jurisdiction under section 3(b)(3) because they are not the decision of the district court of appeal.”). This case is hereby dismissed.
It is so ordered.
PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hines v. State, 931 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…etitioner] will regain competency within the near future.” However, the trial court denied Petitioner’s motion to dismiss, relying on Byrd v. State, 834 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (Benton and Lewis, JJ., concur in result only), review dismissed, 880 So. 2d 616 (Fla.2004), rather than following the clear language of section 916.303(1). In Byrd, Judge Miner explained that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.213(a) “superseded” section 916.303(1). Id. at 873. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.213(a) sta…
-
Isiah Jackson v. State, 926 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 2006)…ition seeking review of a district court decision is styled, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review per curiam decisions rendered without opinion”). In fact, we have even applied Jenkins in the context of mandatory review. In Byrd v. State, 880 So. 2d 616, 617 (Fla.2004), we determined that we lacked jurisdiction over a case in which a concurring opinion declared a statute invalid, because Jenkins required that the language warranting jurisdiction be included in the majority opinion. Applying this s…
-
Ned Pole v. State, 198 So. 3d 961 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…sal to join in the majority’s opinion and its reasoning.” Harry Lee Anstead, Gerald Kogan, Thomas D. Hall & Robert Craig Waters, The Operation and Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida, 29 Nova L. Rev. 431, 460 (2005); see also Byrd v. State, 880 So. 2d 616, 617 (Fla.2004) (holding that First District opinion declaring statute invalid was not the actual decision' of the district court because only one of three judges signed it and the other two judges concurred in result — affirming the trial court’s d…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 385 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 1980)
- Lawanda Byrd v. State, 834 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)