HOWARD MOSS, PETITIONER,
v.
PATRICIA L. MOSS, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Certified Question Of Great Public Importance cases and more on FLexlaw
CANTERO, J.
We have for review Moss v. Moss, 901 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), which cites to and certifies the same question of great public importance as Lashkajani v. Lashkajani, 855 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), quashed, 911 So. 2d 1154 (Fla.2005). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3)-(4), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1981).
This Court recently quashed Lashkajani and answered the certified question in the affirmative. See Lashkajani v. Lashkajani, 911 So. 2d 1154 (Fla.2005). Accordingly, the Court has determined that it should summarily accept jurisdiction in Moss. It is thus ordered that the petition for review in Moss is granted; that decision is quashed; and the matter is remanded for reconsideration in light of this Court’s decision in Lashkajani.
No motion for rehearing will be entertained by the Court.
It is so ordered.
PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, and BELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Renoit Saintelien v. State, 990 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 2008)…shortly after) sentencing on the qualifying offense(s).” Majority op. at 496. This is not always the case. Where the trial court does not make the finding at sentencing, it can be made later. See § 775.21(5)(c), Fla. Stat. (2007); Therrien v. State, 914 So. 2d 942, 947 (Fla.2005) (noting that the statute contains a “second chance” clause applicable to persons who could have been but were not declared sexual predators at sentencing); Cabrera v. State, 884 So. 2d 482, 488 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (Sawaya, C.J., conc…
-
Moss v. Moss, 939 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…Lashkajani and because this case posed the same certified question, the supreme court accepted summary review, quashed our decision in Moss, and “remanded this case for reconsideration in light of this Court’s decision in Lashkajani. ” Moss v. Moss, 914 So. 2d 942, 942 (Fla.2005). Current Appeal On remand, the Husband makes the same arguments concerning whether the trial court properly awarded the Wife her attorney’s fees pursuant to section 61.16. He also makes the same arguments concerning the merit of th…
-
Desiderio Cuevas v. State, 31 So. 3d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…shment. Gonzalez v. State, 808 So. 2d 1265, 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Cuevas’s case also is not one in which his offense was not a qualifying offense for the sexual predator designation at the time of his sentencing, as occurred in Therrien v. State, 914 So. 2d 942 (Fla.2005). The statutory analysis here is straightforward. Does the State lose its right — in fact, must it turn aside from its statutory duty — to seek the designation if it overlooks that right and duty at sentencing? [*292] Cuevas and the diss…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Hadi B. Lashkajani v. Lashkajani, 911 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 2005)
- City OF Hollywood v. Diamond ON THE Beach, Inc., 855 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Moss v. Moss, 901 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)