CANDIE LYNN WALKER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 lacks discretionary jurisdiction to review a district court decision based on a conflict with another decision from the same district court.
[1] The Florida Supreme Court's discretionary jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution to review district court decisions based on direct con…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“This Court's jurisdiction does not extend to intra-district conflict.”
The Court cited its precedent in Terry v. State, 808 So. 2d 1249, 1250 n.1 (Fla. 2002), to support the principle that intra-district conflicts are outside the Court's jurisdiction.
Candie Lynn Walker sought discretionary review of a First District Court of Appeal decision in Walker v. State, 324 So. 3d 60 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021). Wal…
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.
Supreme Court of Florida
____________
No. SC21-1327 ____________
CANDIE LYNN WALKER, Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
January 6, 2022
LAWSON, J.
Petitioner, Candie Lynn Walker, through counsel, seeks to invoke this Court’s discretionary jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution, which allows us to review, among other things, “any decision of a district court of appeal that . . . expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal . . . on the same question of law.” Counsel’s jurisdictional brief argues that we are empowered to review the First District Court of Appeal’s decision in Walker v. State, 324 So. 3d 60 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021), because it conflicts with a decision in another case “decided in the same district court of appeal.” This argument is contrary to the plain language of our constitution, which only grants discretionary jurisdiction under this clause when a decision from one district court “conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal.” Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. (emphasis added). Not surprisingly, our precedent also makes clear that “[t]his Court’s jurisdiction does not extend to intra-district conflict.” Terry v. State, 808 So. 2d 1249, 1250 n.1 (Fla. 2002).
Because the only jurisdictional argument presented in Walker’s brief is contrary to our constitution and precedent, we deny Walker’s petition. It is so ordered. CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, MUÑIZ, COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION
AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal Direct Conflict of Decisions
First District - Case No. 1D20-608 (Escambia County)
Philip J. Massa of Philip J. Massa, P.A., West Palm Beach, Florida,
for Petitioner
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Welch, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Respondent