MATTHEW SCOTT PAUL, 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 Second District Court of Appeal's decision in Paul v. State was improperly decided based on a prior erroneous decision in Hilton v. State.
The Second District Court of Appeal relied on Hilton v. State, which was pending review by the Florida Supreme Court. The Supreme Court subsequently q…
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
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Paul v. State, 908 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (table), in which the Second District Court of Appeal expressly relied upon Hilton v. State, 901 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (en banc), quashed, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla.2007). At the time the Second District issued its decision in Paul, Hilton 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 our disposition of Hilton. See Hilton v. State, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla.2007) (quashing the Second District’s decision in Hilton, upon which that court had relied in Paul). When our decision in Hilton became final, we issued an order directing respondent to show cause why we should not accept jurisdiction, quash the Paul decision, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Hilton. Upon considering respondent’s response, we have determined to do so.
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 for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Hilton.
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
-
D.E.M. v. State, 985 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…PER CURIAM. This case is on remand from the Florida Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Hilton v. State, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla.2007). See D.E.M. v. State, 979 So. 2d 954 (Fla.2008), quashing 916 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). As in State v. Howard, 983 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), we think it appropriate also to remand the case to the trial court for further consideration consistent with Hilton, 961 So. 2d at 284.…
-
Paul v. State, 991 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…Hilton v. State, 901 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (en banc) (Hilton I). The supreme court reversed Hilton I, quashed our decision in Paul, and remanded for our reconsideration. Hilton v. State, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla.2007) (Hilton II); Paul v. State, 979 So. 2d 954 (Fla.2008). On remand, we affirm. Facts A police officer stopped Mr. Paul’s pickup truck because the left taillamp casing was broken. Mr. Paul told the officer that he did not have a driver’s license but provided his name, social security number,…
Authorities Cited
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Tristan Hilton v. State, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2007)
- Tristan Hilton v. State, 901 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)