JASON HAMILTON, 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 Florida Supreme Court granted Hamilton's petition for review, quashed the Fourth District's decision, and remanded for harmless error analysis under Galindez v. State because the record was insufficient for the Court to perform the analysis itself.
A case must be remanded to the appellate court for harmless error analysis when the Supreme Court lacks a complete record to perform the analysis unilaterally.
[1] An appellate court must remand for harmless error analysis when the reviewing court lacks a complete record necessary to perform the analysis unilaterally.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHamilton sought review of a Fourth District decision that conflicted with a First District decision. The Supreme Court had stayed proceedings pending …
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 Certification Of Conflict cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Hamilton v. State, 914 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified conflict with Isaac v. State, 911 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction filed, No. SC05-2047 (Fla. Oct.31, 2005). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We stayed proceedings in this case pending disposition of Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517 (Fla.2007), which we ultimately decided on harmless error grounds based on a thorough review of the record. We thereafter issued an order directing petitioner to show cause why our Galindez decision should not control the outcome of the present case. However, petitioner’s response does not contain enough information or record attachments for us to perform a Galindez harmless error analysis. Moreover, we cannot unilaterally perform such an analysis, as the record is not before this Court.
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 application of a harmless error analysis based on our decision in Galindez and a thorough review of the record. Petitioner’s pending motions for clarification are 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
-
State v. Fleming, 61 So. 3d 399 (Fla. 2011)…ed on other grounds, 976 So. 2d 579 (Fla.2008); Lester v. State, 923 So. 2d 596, 597 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), quashed on other grounds, 976 So. 2d 577, 577 (Fla.2008); Hamilton v. State, 914 So. 2d 993, 994 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), quashed on other grounds, 976 So. 2d 575, 576 (Fla.2008). C. Resolving the Conflict In holding that Apprendi and Blakely apply to resentencings regardless of the finality of the defendant’s conviction before they issued, the First District implicitly followed longstanding precedent of th…
Authorities Cited
- Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2007)
- Lemuel E. Isaac v. State, 911 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Hamilton v. State, 914 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)