GREGORY A. CUTTS, 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 the record lacked sufficient information for a harmless error analysis, requiring remand.
The court reviewed a case where proceedings were stayed pending another decision. The petitioner's response lacked sufficient information for a harmle…
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 Cutts v. State, 940 So. 2d 1246 (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 and respondent’s reply thereto do 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)…endi and Blakely do not apply to convictions final before the Supreme Court decisions issued and thus do not apply 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.…
-
Cutts v. State, 18 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…. 1st DCA 2005). The supreme court granted review, quashed this court’s decision, and remanded the case with directions to perform a harmless error analysis based upon the decision in Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517 (Fla.2007). See Cutts v. State, 976 So. 2d 579 (Fla.2008). We now affirm because any errors made during Mr. Cutts’ 2005 resentencing were harmless. Affirmed. CASANUEVA, STRINGER, and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2007)
- Lemuel E. Isaac v. State, 911 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Cutts v. State, 940 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)