JOHN CHRISTIANSEN, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Fla. | 2009-12-03
No. SC08-2243
QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
26 So. 3d 1287 Florida Supreme Court (2009) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.


Holding

The court quashed the Second District's decision and remanded for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's prior ruling in Sheppard v. State.


Facts & Procedural History

The Second District Court of Appeal certified conflict with another district court in Christiansen v. State, citing its own decision in Sheppard v. St…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Christiansen v. State, 993 So.2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), in which the Second District Court of Appeal cited as authority its decision in Sheppard v. State, 988 So.2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), quashed, 17 So.3d 275 (Fla.2009), and, as it had done in that case, certified conflict with decisions of another district court of appeal. At the time the Second District issued its Christiansen decision, Sheppard was pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3)-(4), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981).

We stayed proceedings in this case pending our disposition of Sheppard v. State, 17 So.3d 275 (Fla.2009), in which we ultimately quashed the Second District’s underlying Sheppard decision. We then issued an order directing respondent in the present case to show cause why we should not accept jurisdiction, quash the Second District’s underlying Christiansen decision, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Sheppard. Respondent in its response concedes that it can show no such cause.

We have accordingly determined to exercise jurisdiction and 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 Sheppard decision.

It is so ordered.

QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Christiansen v. State, 29 So. 3d 1163 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
    …SILBERMAN, Judge. In Christiansen v. State, 26 So. 3d 1287 (Fla.2009), the Supreme Court of Florida quashed this court’s decision in Christiansen v. State, 993 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), and directed this court on remand to reconsider the matter in light of the supreme court’s decision in Sheppard v. St…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw