JERMAINE THOMAS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 a prior decision.
The court stayed proceedings in this case pending disposition of a related case, Hearns v. State. After Hearns was decided, the court ordered responde…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Thomas v. State, 933 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), based on express and direct conflict with Perkins v. State, 576 So. 2d 1810 (Fla.1991). We have jurisdiction. See art V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. At the time the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued its decision in Thomas, another case was pending here on review likewise based on express and direct conflict with Perkins. See Hearns v. State, 912 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), approved, 961 So. 2d 211 (Fla.2007). We thus stayed proceedings in the present case pending disposition of Hearns. After Hearns was decided, we issued an order directing respondent to show cause why we should not accept jurisdiction, quash the Thomas decision, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Hearns. In its response, respondent “respectfully submits to this Court that the holding of Hearns applies to the case at bar” and that, “now that Hearns has been decided, the Court should apply the same principles of law to the case at bar and take whatever action it deems just and proper in the circumstances.”
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 of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Hearns.
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
-
Thomas v. State, 983 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…y sudden snatching and the sentences imposed for both offenses. In our prior opinion, we affirmed in all respects, save the PRR sentence imposed for the fleeing and eluding conviction. See Thomas v. State, 933 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), quashed, 969 So. 2d 353 (Fla.2007). A prison releasee reoffender sentence is appropriate only if the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced is one of the [*747] enumerated felonies or “[a]ny felony that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence ag…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Hearns, 961 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2007)
- Hearns v. State, 912 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Thomas v. State, 933 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)