Arguelles v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Arguelles v. State

825 So. 2d 342, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 708, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 1756, 2002 WL 1926530

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedAugust 22, 2002

DocketNo. SC01-1569

StatusPublished

This text of 825 So. 2d 342 (Arguelles v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arguelles v. State, 825 So. 2d 342, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 708, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 1756, 2002 WL 1926530 (Fla. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Arguelles v. State, 791 So.2d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), a decision relying on Banks v. State, 755 So.2d 142 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), quashed, 790 So.2d 1094 (Fla.2001), which was pending review in this Court at the time of the district court’s decision in this case. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.

We recently quashed the decision in Banks. See Banks v. State, 790 So.2d 1094 (Fla.2001). While the extent of the district court’s reliance on Banks is not entirely clear, we conclude that, because of the express reliance, we should vacate the decision and direct the district court to reconsider its decision in light of our opinion in Banks. Such reconsideration should be without prejudice to the parties providing additional briefing to the district court on the effect of our decision in Banks on this case.

Accordingly, we quash the decision under review and remand for further proceedings in accord herewith.

It is so ordered.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Arguelles v. State, 791 So.2d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), a decision relying on Banks v. State, 755 So.2d 142 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), quashed, 790 So.2d 1094 (Fla.2001), which was pending review in this Court at the time of the district court’s decision in this case. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.

We recently quashed the decision in Banks. See Banks v. State, 790 So.2d 1094 (Fla.2001). While the extent of the district court’s reliance on Banks is not entirely clear, we conclude that, because of the express reliance, we should vacate the decision and direct the district court to reconsider its decision in light of our opinion in Banks. Such reconsideration should be without prejudice to the parties providing additional briefing to the district court on the effect of our decision in Banks on this case.

Accordingly, we quash the decision under review and remand for further proceedings in accord herewith.

It is so ordered.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

825 So. 2d 342, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 708, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 1756, 2002 WL 1926530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arguelles-v-state-fla-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack