STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
DAVID DWAYNE BROWN, 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 determined that merits briefing was unnecessary and proceeded to summarily quash the decision under review.
The Third District Court of Appeal's decision conflicted with another district court's decision, which was later approved by the Florida Supreme Court…
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
We have for review the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Brown v. State, 967 So.2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007), which expressly and directly conflicts with the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Garzon v. State, 939 So.2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), approved, 980 So.2d 1038 (Fla.2008). At the time the Third District issued its decision in Brown, Garzon was pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
We stayed proceedings in this case pending disposition of Garzon, 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. Upon reviewing respondent’s response and petitioner’s reply thereto, we issued an order accepting jurisdiction and ordering merits briefing. Petitioner thus filed its initial brief and respondent his answer brief, whereupon petitioner filed a motion to strike respondent’s answer brief.
In considering the motion, the Court had occasion to review anew the cases at issue and the parties’ response and reply to our order to show cause. Upon reevaluation, we have determined that merits briefing is unnecessary and that the Court should proceed, as it originally intended, to summarily quash the decision being reviewed and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Garzón. We have already accepted jurisdiction by order. The decision under review is quashed, and this matter is remanded to the Third District for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Garzón. Petitioner’s motion to strike respondent’s answer brief is accordingly denied as moot.
It is so ordered.
QUINCE, C.J., and WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, and LABARGA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 35 So. 3d 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- Brown v. State, 967 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)