TERRY BARRON, 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 held that petitioner's response lacked sufficient information for a harmless error analysis, and the record was not before the court.
The court reviewed a case where a prior decision was stayed pending another case's disposition. The petitioner's response to a show cause order was in…
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 Discretionary Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Barron v. State, 931 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), in which the Second 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 Second District Court for application of a harmless error analysis based on our decision in Galindez and a thorough review of the record.
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)…ply to any subsequent resentencings in such cases. See Cutts v. State, 940 So. 2d 1246, 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), quashed 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…
-
Lester v. State, 987 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…LAWSON, J. We reconsider this matter on remand from the Florida Supreme Court, which directed that we conduct a harmless error analysis based upon its decision in Galin-dez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517 (Fla.2007). See Lester v. State, 976 So. 2d 577 (Fla.2008). We affirm Lester’s upward departure sentence, finding that any error in the trial court’s failure to apply Ap-prendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct.…
Authorities Cited
- Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2007)
- Lemuel E. Isaac v. State, 911 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Barron v. State, 931 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)