STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
ELDRICK WENDALL WOODING, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court quashed the Third District Court of Appeal's decision in State v. Wooding and remanded for reconsideration in light of the intervening decision in Milks v. State.
The Third District's decision must be reconsidered in light of Milks v. State and any other properly raised issues not controlled by that decision.
[1] When a lower court decision relies on authority subsequently reversed by an intervening appellate decision, the lower court decision must be reconsidered in light of the…
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 intelligenceWooding's case was decided by the Third District Court of Appeal citing to Espindola v. State, which was pending review in the Florida Supreme Court a…
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 Remand For Reconsideration cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review State v. Wooding, 858 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), which cites to a case that was pending review in this Court (Espindola v. State, 855 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), reversed sub nom. Milks v. State, 894 So. 2d 924, 925 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 368, 163 L.Ed.2d 86 (2005)). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1981).
We directed respondent to show cause why this Court should not accept jurisdiction, summarily quash Wooding, 858 So. 2d 334, and remand for reconsideration in light of Milks v. State, 894 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2005). In its response to the order to show cause, the respondent argues that one of the bases upon which the Third District may have affirmed the trial court’s order in his case is not controlled by Milks, 894 So. 2d 924. Having reviewed the case and the petitioner’s reply, we have decided to grant the petition for review and remand this case for further consideration. The Third District’s decision in Wooding, 858 So. 2d 334, is quashed, and this matter is remanded for reconsideration in light of Milks, 894 So. 2d 924, and any other matters that were properly raised before the Third District but not controlled by Milks, 894 So. 2d 924. No motion for rehearing will be entertained by the Court.
It is so ordered.
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Eldrick Wooding, 984 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…versed Espindola in the case of Milks, and remanded the instant case to this court for further consideration in light of Milks “and any other matters that were properly raised before the Third District but not controlled by Milks.” State v. Wooding, 940 So. 2d 1109 (Fla.2006). Based upon the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1, 123 S.Ct. 1160, 155 L.Ed.2d 98 (2003), and the Supreme Court of Florida’s holding in Milks, we conclude that section 77…
Authorities Cited
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Ferman Carlos Espindola v. State, 855 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Milks v. State, 894 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2005)
- State v. Eldrick Wendall Wooding, 858 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)