STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIE LAWRENCE, APPELLEE
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 court summarily affirmed the Third District Court's decision in Lawrence based on its prior ruling in Harden, and denied the appellee's motion to dismiss as moot.
The Third District Court reversed a trial court's order revoking probation based on its decision in State v. Harden, which was then pending review by …
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 Florida Supreme Court Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Lawrence v. State, 918 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), in which the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order revoking probation based upon its prior decision in State v. Harden, 873 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), aff'd, 938 So. 2d 480 (Fla.2006). At the time the Third District Court issued its decision in Lawrence, Harden was pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1981).
We recently affirmed the Third District Court’s decision in Harden. See State v. Harden, 938 So. 2d 480 (Fla.2006). As a result, we issued an order on September 20, 2006, directing the appellant to show cause why this Court should not summarily affirm Lawrence in light of our decision in Harden. Appellant agreed that “Harden is controlling in the instant case, and summary affirmance is appropriate.” The appellee had previously submitted a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot because the State had entered a Nolle Prosequi on September 7, 2006, as to all charges pending against him.
Based upon our decision in Harden and the appellant’s response to the order to show cause, we summarily affirm the decision of the Third District Court in Lawrence. Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot is denied.
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
Authorities Cited
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- State v. Harden, 938 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2006)
- State v. Harden, 873 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Lawrence v. State, 918 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)