DAVID ROLAND MANCINI, 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.
Florida Supreme Court discharged a writ of certiorari in a marijuana possession case, finding it was improvidently issued because there was no conflict of law warranting the court's jurisdiction. The court held that the District Court of Appeal's affirmance of the conviction based on sufficient evidence of exclusive possession was not in conflict with prior case law.
The writ of certiorari was improvidently issued and the Court lacks jurisdiction because there is no conflict of law. The District Court's holding regarding sufficiency of evidence based on exclusive possession does not conflict with prior case law establishing that joint possession or control by multiple persons is the key distinguishing factor.
[1] A writ of certiorari may be improvidently issued if the court's jurisdiction is invoked merely because of disagreement with a lower court's decision or a different factua…
[2] A court's jurisdiction to review decisions of courts of appeal based on alleged conflicts is invoked by the announcement of a conflicting rule of law or the application o…
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“Our jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because we might disagree with the decision of the district court nor because we might have made a factual determination if we had been the trier of fact”
Establishes that the Supreme Court's certiorari jurisdiction is limited and cannot be based on disagreement with district court rulings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Mancini was arrested for marijuana possession in an automobile that belonged to his mother but in which Mancini was in exclusive possession…
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 Exclusive Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon the original consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari, a majority of this court felt that there was an apparent conflict with the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in the instant case and prior opinions of this court and other district courts. The writ was issued and wc entertained arguments on the merits. The decision brought before us for review affirms a judgment of conviction for possession of marijuana. The two questions presented to the district court were the validity of the search and seizure and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction.
It now appears to us upon closer inspection that the writ was improvidently issued and that we are without jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because we might disagree with the decision of the district court nor because we might have made a factual determination if we had been the trier of fact, Kincaid v. World Insurance Co., 157 So. 2d 517 (Fla.1963). As pointed out in Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, Fla., 117 So. 2d 731, our jurisdiction to review decisions of courts of appeal because of alleged conflicts is invoked by (1) the announcement of a rule of law which conflicts with a rule previously announced by this court or another district, or (2) the application of a rule of law to produce a different result in a case which involves substantially the same facts as a prior case. In this second situation, the facts of the case are of the utmost importance.
The District Court’s opinion is apparently based on the holding that there was substantial competent evidence upon which the trial court’s judgment could be sustained. The holding of the District Court that the facts of the instant case are sufficient to support a conviction is not in conflict with those in a line of cases beginning with Frank v. State, 199 So. 2d 117 (Fla.App.1967), which dealt with joint possession of the premises in which contraband is found. There was evidence which was believed by the fact finder which shows that although the automobile did belong to petitioner’s mother, petitioner was in exclusive possession and control at the time of the arrest. The overriding factual consideration in the cases relied on by petitioner is the lack of control and possession of the premises or automobile by two or more persons. There is no evidence here which shows that petitioner was not in exclusive control of the automobile.
Although we might have arrived at a different conclusion as to the effect of the circumstantial evidence and inferences to be drawn therefrom, that is not the measure of our jurisdiction. Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, supra.
Having been improvidently issued, the writ is therefore discharged.
ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, DEKLE, OVERTON and ENGLAND, JJ., concur. McCAIN, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1983)…rect conflict with the rule announced in Ellison v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 183 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1966), and Mathews v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 89 So. 2d 641 (Fla.1956), we have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Mancini v. State, 312 So. 2d 732 (Fla.1975); Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla.1960). We therefore grant the petition for review for the purpose of expunging language in the district court of appeal opinion that directly conflicts with our earlier decisions. See Gove…
-
Vest v. Travelers Ins. Co., 753 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2000)…994). Based on the conflict created by this misapplication, we have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. See Arab Termite & Pest Control of Florida, Inc.,v. Jenkins, 409 So. 2d 1039, 1041 (Fla.1982); Mancini v. State, 312 So. 2d 732 (Fla.1975). FACTS In 1995, Dr. Thomas Vest was killed in an auto accident involving an underinsured motorist. Dr. Vest was insured by respondent Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers) with an underinsured (UM) motorist policy in the amount of $20…
-
Norris Riggs, Jr. v. State, 918 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 2005)…the same principles of Fourth Amendment law, we have jurisdiction because of the Second District’s “application of a rule of law to produce a different result in a case which involves substantially the same facts as a prior case.” Mancini v. State, 312 So. 2d 732, 733 (Fla.1975) (citing Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla.1960)). We granted review, Riggs, 900 So. 2d at 554, and now resolve the conflict by approving the district court’s decision. II. ANALYSIS We must decide whether exigent circ…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Frank v. State, 199 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Dade Cnty. Port Auth. & Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Keller, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1960)
- Nielsen v. City OF Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1960)
- Kincaid v. World Ins. Co., 157 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1963)