STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
ANTHONY MURPHY, 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 the petition for review, quashed the decision under review, and remanded for reconsideration.
The court reviewed a prior decision, Bates v. State, which was in conflict with another case, Murphy v. State. The case was stayed pending related dec…
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 Express And Direct Conflict Of Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Murphy v. State, 820 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), based on express and direct conflict with Bates v. State, 818 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), quashed, 887 So. 2d 1214 (Fla.2004). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 8(b)(3), Fla. Const. 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. Upon consideration of respondent’s response, and petitioner’s reply thereto, we have determined to do so as to Dickey.
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 decision in 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 (48 total)
-
Salazar v. State, 991 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 2008)…with other capital cases.” Porter v. State, 564 So. 2d 1060, 1064 (Fla.1990) (citation omitted). We hold that the imposition of the death penalty in this case is not disproportionate to other cases decided by this Court. See, e.g., Walker v. State, 957 So. 2d 560, 585 (Fla.2007) (determining that the death sentence was proportionate where three ag-gravators (during the course of a felony, HAC, and CCP) outweighed four nonstatu-tory mitigators (defendant’s drug use/bipolar personality/sleep deprivation, codef…
-
Hudson v. State, 992 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 2008)…t had no pretense of moral or legal justification.” Franklin v. State, 965 So. 2d 79, 98 (Fla.2007) (citing Jackson v. State, 648 So. 2d 85, 89 (Fla.1994)). It is the State’s burden to prove CCP beyond a reasonable doubt. See [*116] Walker v. State, 957 So. 2d 560, 581 (Fla.2007). A determination of whether CCP is present is properly based on a consideration of the totality of the circumstances. Wike v. State, 698 So. 2d 817, 823 (Fla.1997); see also Lynch v. State, 841 So. 2d 362, 372 (Fla.2003). “[T]he fac…1 / 2
-
McWATTERS v. State, 36 So. 3d 613 (Fla. 2010)…ppeal of a denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal where the State submitted direct evidence, the trial court’s determination will be affirmed if the record contains competent and substantial evidence in support of the ruling.” Walker v. State, 957 So. 2d 560, 577 (Fla.2007) (quoting Conde v. State, 860 So. 2d 980, 943 (Fla.2003)). However, where a conviction is based wholly upon circumstantial evidence, a special standard of review applies: [A] conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inco…
Previewing 3 of 48 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- 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)
- Murphy v. State, 820 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)