STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
A.M.W., 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 its prior decision in Kelso v. State dictates the outcome in this case, requiring the Fifth District Court's decision to be quashed.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal's decision in A.M.W. v. State conflicted with another district court's decision, which was later approved by the Fl…
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
LEWIS, C.J.
We have for review A.M.W. v. State, 934 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal followed its previous decisions in Scarola v. State, 889 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (en banc), and Wilson v. State, 776 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), noting that the Fourth District Court of Appeal had certified conflict with Wilson in Kelso v. State, 898 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), approved, 961 So. 2d 277 (Fla.2007). At the time the Fifth District Court issued its decision in A.M.W., Kelso was pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1981).
We stayed proceedings in this case pending disposition of Kelso. We have since decided Kelso, therein approving the Fourth District Court’s underlying Kelso
decision and disapproving the Fifth District Court’s Scarola and Wilson decisions. See Kelso v. State, 961 So. 2d 277 (Fla.2007). We thus issued an order directing respondent in the present case to show cause why we should not accept jurisdiction, quash the Fifth District Court’s A/M.W. decision, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Kelso. Respondent did not respond to that order, thereby constructively conceding that we should so proceed.
We accordingly grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed and this matter is remanded to the Fifth District Court for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Kelso.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
Tavares J. Wright v. State, 19 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 2009)…standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.20 [*302] This Court has held that an aggravator was not conceded where defense counsel attempted to emphasize that the State had not proven the aggravator beyond a reasonable doubt. See Stephens v. State, 975 So. 2d 405, 417 (Fla.2007). However, defense counsel’s contention at sentencing does not reflect this strategy. It is clear that the sentencing memorandum combined with the defense’s “presumption” contention during the hearing conceded this aggravating factor.…
-
Ferrell v. State, 29 So. 3d 959 (Fla. 2010)…process raises concerns about counsel’s performance. That is why this Court has held that the absence of counsel at discovery depositions in a criminal case when the State is seeking the death penalty is “presumptively deficient.” Stephens v. State, 975 So. 2d 405, 418 (Fla.2007). However, as with all claims under Strickland, the defendant must still prove that he or she was prejudiced by such absence. Depositions and Discovery Ferrell first argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to take the deposi…
-
Lowe v. State, 2 So. 3d 21 (Fla. 2008)…we, 650 So. 2d at 974. Therefore, because defense counsel did object based on relevancy, Lowe cannot now argue that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the introduction into evidence of the PSI based on relevancy. See Stephens v. State, 975 So. 2d 405 (Fla.2007) (holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to object when, in fact, he did object). . Because Lowe repeats the argument about the videotaped police “reenactment” of the crime from a previous claim, we will not readdre…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Wilson v. State, 776 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Kelso v. State, 961 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2007)
- Vito Scarola v. State, 889 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Kelso v. State, 898 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- A.M.W. v. State, 934 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)