DAVID L. BROWN, 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision, which relied on a now disapproved opinion, must be reconsidered in light of the court's subsequent ruling.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal relied on its own prior decision in Yisrael v. State, which was later disapproved in part by the Florida Supreme C…
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 Stare Decisis cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Brown v. State, 940 So.2d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), an unelabo-rated decision in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal relied upon its decision in Yisrael v. State, 938 So.2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (en banc), disapproved in part, 993 So.2d 952 (Fla.2008). When the Fourth District’s decision in Brown became final, Yisrael was already pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418, 420 (Fla.1981).
We stayed proceedings in this case pending our disposition of Yisrael, in which we: (1) approved the decision of the First District in Gray v. State, 910 So.2d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), and (2) disapproved the reasoning and rule of law articulated by the Fourth District in its underlying decision, but ultimately approved the result reached by that court on other grounds. See Yisrael v. State, 993 So.2d 952, 960-61 (Fla.2008). We subsequently issued an order directing the State to show cause why we should not accept jurisdiction, summarily quash the decision under review, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Yisrael. In response, the State asserts several record-based substantive contentions and urges that this Court deny review. However, the full appellate record is not before us, and the Fourth District is the proper tribunal in which to present these fact-based contentions.
This Court has disapproved in part the very opinion upon which the district court relied below. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, quash, and remand to the Fourth District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of our decision in Yisrael.
It is so ordered.
*529QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, and LABARGA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 18 So. 3d 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…irmed the trial court’s revocation of Brown’s probation, but the supreme court subsequently reversed that decision and remanded the case to us to consider the application of its holding in Yisrael v. State, 993 So. 2d 952 (Fla.2008). Brown v. State, 7 So. 3d 528 (Fla.2009). We conclude that the supreme court’s holding in Yisrael does not control the disposition of this case. In Yisrael, the supreme court held that release-date letters issued by the Department of Corrections are non-admissible hearsay unles…
Authorities Cited
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Yisrael v. State, 993 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2008)
- Mitchell v. State, 938 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Gray v. State, 910 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Brown v. State, 940 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Pomposello v. State, 940 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)