JAMES INGRAM, 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 Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction over a capital case and quashed the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision, remanding for reconsideration in light of the Court's decision in Yisrael v. State, which disapproved the Fourth District's reasoning on sentencing requirements while approving the First District's approach.
The Florida Supreme Court granted the petition for review, quashed the Fourth District's decision, and remanded for reconsideration under the correct legal standard established in Yisrael v. State.
[1] A court may quash and remand a lower court's decision for reconsideration in light of a subsequent controlling decision.
[2] When a case relies on a prior decision that is subsequently disapproved in part by a higher court, the case may be remanded for reconsideration.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“disapproved in part, 993 So. 2d 952 (Fla.2008)”
Establishes that the Fourth District's reasoning in Yisrael was disapproved by the Supreme Court, necessitating reconsideration of cases relying on that reasoning.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIngram was convicted and sentenced in a capital case. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence relying on reasoning fr…
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 Certified Conflict cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Ingram v. State, 943 So.2d 325 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), 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), and certified conflict with the First District’s decision in Gray v. State, 910 So.2d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
We stayed proceedings in this case pending our disposition of Yisrael, in which we: (1) approved the decision of the First District in Gray, 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 that documents submitted during sentencing complied with this Court’s Yisrael decision. However, the full appellate record is not before the Court, and the Fourth District is a more appropriate forum in which to raise these factual contentions that were not addressed within the four corners of the district court’s opinion 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.
QUINCE, C.J, and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, and LABARGA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ingram v. State, 7 So. 3d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…PER CURIAM. We reconsider on remand our opinion in Ingram v. State, 943 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), which the Florida Supreme Court reviewed in Ingram v. State, No. SC06-2469, 7 So. 3d 531, 2009 WL 702877 (Fla. Mar. 19, 2009). Ingram argued to this court, among other things, that the trial court erred in designating and sentencing him as a prison release reoffender (“PRR”) on Count I (burglary of a dwelling with battery). 943 So. 2d…
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- Ingram v. State, 943 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)