STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
REGINALD ALEXANDER GREEN, 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 it had jurisdiction to review the decision and should quash the decision under review and remand for reconsideration in light of a prior Supreme Court decision.
The First District Court of Appeal acknowledged conflict with another district's decision. The Supreme Court stayed proceedings pending disposition of…
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 Conflict Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Green v. State, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D1213, _ So. 2d _, 2007 WL 1319259 (Fla. 1st DCA May 8, 2007), in which the First District Court of Appeal acknowledged (but did not certify) conflict with the Fourth District’s decision in Garzon v. State, 939 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), approved, 980 So. 2d 1038 (Fla.2008). At the time the First District issued its decision in Green, Garzon 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 the proceedings in this case pending disposition of Garzón, in which we ultimately approved the Fourth District’s underlying Garzon decision. See Garzon v. State, 980 So. 2d 1038 (Fla.2008). We thereafter issued an order in this case, directing respondent to show cause why we should not accept jurisdiction, summarily quash the decision being reviewed, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Garzón. Respondent concedes in his response that we should so proceed, and in its reply, petitioner agrees.
Accordingly, we grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed, and this matter is remanded to the First District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Garzón.
It is so ordered.
QUINCE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and BELL, JJ., concur. CANADY, J., did not participate.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Green v. State, 996 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…38 (Fla.2008). After deciding Garzon, 980 So. 2d at 1038, the supreme court accepted jurisdiction in the present case, summarily quashed our original decision, and remanded for reconsideration in light of its decision in Garzon. See State v. Given, 992 So. 2d 223 (Fla.2008). We now reconsider our decision in accordance with the supreme court’s mandate, mindful that the Garzon decision disapproved the decisions in Davis v. State, 922 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), and Zeno v. State, 910 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 2d…
Authorities Cited
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Zamir Garzon v. State, 980 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 2008)
- Zamir Garzon and Ray C. Balthazar v. State, 939 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)