STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
ISAAC SMITH, 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 court held that a prior decision from the Fourth District Court of Appeal should be reconsidered in light of subsequent decisions by the Florida Supreme Court.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal certified conflict with another district court's decision and certified a question of great public importance. Thi…
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 Question Of Great Public Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
[*557] PER CURIAM.
We have for review Smith v. State, 829 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified conflict with Bates v. State, 818 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), quashed, 887 So. 2d 1214 (Fla.2004), and certified the same question of great public importance as had been certified in Bates. At the time the Fourth District issued its decision in Smith, Bates was pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3)-(4), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1981).
We stayed this case and proceeded to issue our related decisions in Bates v. State, 887 So. 2d 1214 (Fla.2004), and State v. Dickey, 928 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.2006). Once those decisions were final, we issued an order directing the respondent to show cause why we should not exercise our jurisdiction to summarily quash the decision under review and remand for reconsideration in light of our decisions in Bates and Dickey. Respondent did not file a response but, upon consideration of petitioner’s reply, we have determined to do just that.
We accordingly grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed and this matter is remanded to the Fourth District Court for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decisions in Bates and Dickey.
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
-
Smith v. State, 961 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…Dickey that misadvice about the consequences for a crime not yet committed cannot constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Affirmed. SHAHOOD, C.J., KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. . Smith v. State, 829 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), quashed, 957 So. 2d 556 (Fla.2007).…
Authorities Cited
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- State v. Dickey, 928 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 2006)
- Bates v. State, 887 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 2004)
- Bates v. State, 818 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Smith v. State, 829 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)