THOMAS LEWIS
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.
Thomas Dexter Lewis appealed the denial of a Rule 3.800 motion in a criminal case from St. Lucie County Circuit Court. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, following binding precedent from Hart v. State while expressing disagreement with conflicting decisions and certifying conflict with multiple other district court decisions.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the Rule 3.800 motion. The court was bound by the en banc majority decision in Hart v. State but expressed disagreement with that position and certified conflict with multiple other district court decisions on the issue.
[1] A lower court panel of an appellate court is bound by an en banc decision of that court and must follow it regardless of whether the panel disagrees with the reasoning.
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 intelligenceThomas Dexter Lewis filed a Rule 3.800 motion in a criminal case (Case No. 56-2010-CF-001610-A) in the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circu…
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 Rule 3.800 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Robert E. Belanger, Judge; L.T. Case No. 56-2010-CF-001610-A. Thomas Dexter Lewis, Jasper, pro se. No appearance required for appellee. PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Hart v. State, 246 So. 3d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA) (en banc), rev. dismissed, No. SC18-967, 2018 WL 6181698 (Fla. Nov. 28, 2018); Pedroza v. State, 244 So. 3d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. granted, No. SC18-964, 2018 WL 6433136 (Fla. Dec. 6, 2018). We continue to certify conflict with those cases in disagreement with Pedroza. See Warthen v. State, 265 So. 3d 695, 697-98 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (citing Donahue v. State, 257 So. 3d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) and certifying conflict with Cuevas v. State, 241 So. 3d 947 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018); Blount v. State, 238 So. 3d 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018); Katwaroo v. State, 237 So. 3d 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018); Mosier v. State, 235 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017); Alfaro v. State, 233 So. 3d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017); Burrows v. State, 219 So. 3d 910 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) and Tarrand v. State, 199 So. 3d 507 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)). TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur. MAY, J., concurs specially with opinion, in which TAYLOR, J., concurs. MAY, J., concurring specially. Because we are bound by the en banc majority decision in Hart v. State, 246 So. 3d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA) (en banc), dismissed as moot, SC18-967, (Fla. Nov. 27, 2018), we concur. However, we continue to agree with the position expressed in Judge Warner’s dissent in Hart.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jessy J. Burrows v. State, 219 So. 3d 910 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
- Mosier v. State, 235 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)
- Hart v. State, 246 So. 3d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
- Rachaun Blount v. State, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D2181 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
- Pedroza v. State, 244 So. 3d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
- Deryck Lee Katwaroo v. State, 237 So. 3d 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Cuevas v. State, 241 So. 3d 947 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
- Tarrand v. State, 199 So. 3d 507 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
- Wagner v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)