STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
THEODORE WILLIAMSON A/K/A THEODORE JAWORSKI, 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 granted review, quashed the decision under review, and remanded for reconsideration in light of prior decisions.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal certified conflict with another decision while a related case was pending before the Florida Supreme Court. The Su…
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 Certified Conflict cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Jaworski v. State, 828 So. 2d 1046 (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). At the time the Fourth District issued its decision in Ja-worski, Bates was pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(8)-(4), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1981).
We stayed this ease 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. Upon consideration of the respondent’s response, and the petitioner’s reply thereto, 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 for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decisions in Bates and Dickey. Respondent’s pending motion to consider ancillary issues is hereby denied as moot.
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
-
Williamson v. State, 958 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…writ of error coram nobis, claiming, in part, that his attorney affirmatively misadvised him of the future, collateral consequences of the February 1993 plea. In Jaworski v. State, 828 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), quashed by State v. Williamson, 957 So. 2d 558 (Fla.2007), we reversed and noted conflict as to this issue. The State sought review in the supreme court. The supreme court recently granted relief to the State, quashed our ruling, and remanded for further consideration in light of Bates v. State…1 / 2
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)
- Jaworski v. State, 828 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)