STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER(S)
v.
FREDDRICK HINES, RESPONDENT(S)
On September 29, 2008, this Court entered its order accepting jurisdiction and on October 1, 2009, issued its order setting oral argument. Since there are not four justices that agree on the disposition of this case, and there not being any extraordinary circumstances that would justify deciding the case, jurisdiction is hereby discharged.
No Motion for Rehearing will be entertained by the Court. See Fla. RApp. P. 9.330(d)(2).
PARIENTE, LEWIS, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
CANADY, J., concurs in result only with an opinion, in which QUINCE, C.J., concurs.
POLSTON, J., recused.
concurring in result only.
The Court being equally divided regarding the disposition of this case, I concur in the decision to discharge jurisdiction. In my view, the Court should retain jurisdiction and quash the decision of the First District Court of Appeal.
QUINCE, C.J., concurs.
CANADY, J.,
concurring in result only.
The Court being equally divided regarding the disposition of this case, I concur in the decision to discharge jurisdiction. In my view, the Court should retain jurisdiction and quash the decision of the First District Court of Appeal.
QUINCE, C.J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Emmory Moore v. State, 127 So. 3d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…of great public importance regarding the holding of Burr II to our supreme court. Id. The supreme court accepted jurisdiction only to relinquish it two years later. State v. Hines, 990 So. 2d 1060 (Fla.2008) (accepting jurisdiction); State v. Hines, 26 So. 3d 1289 (Fla.2010) (discharging jurisdiction). We share the First District’s concern with the rule created by Burr II, especially in light of the fact that a trial court cannot admit evidence of a collateral crime without first determining that the defendan…