Barber v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Barber v. State

829 So. 2d 900, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 850, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 1960

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedOctober 10, 2002

DocketNos. SC01-1006, SC01-1007

StatusPublished

This text of 829 So. 2d 900 (Barber 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

Barber v. State, 829 So. 2d 900, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 850, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 1960 (Fla. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We initially accepted jurisdiction to review Barber v. State, 781 So.2d 425 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), and State v. Barber, 783 So.2d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), based on misapplication of this Court’s opinion in State v. Norris, 168 So.2d 541, 543 (Fla.1964), and express and direct conflict with Smith v. State, 700 So.2d 446, 446-47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), Audano v. State, 641 So.2d 1356, 1358-59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), Dibble v. State, 347 So.2d 1096, 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), Malcolm v. State, 415 So.2d 891, 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and Smith v. State, 743 So.2d 141, 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Upon reflection and further consideration, we now conclude that review was improvidently granted. Accordingly, these review proceedings are dismissed.

It is so ordered.

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

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

PER CURIAM.

We initially accepted jurisdiction to review Barber v. State, 781 So.2d 425 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), and State v. Barber, 783 So.2d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), based on misapplication of this Court’s opinion in State v. Norris, 168 So.2d 541, 543 (Fla.1964), and express and direct conflict with Smith v. State, 700 So.2d 446, 446-47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), Audano v. State, 641 So.2d 1356, 1358-59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), Dibble v. State, 347 So.2d 1096, 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), Malcolm v. State, 415 So.2d 891, 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and Smith v. State, 743 So.2d 141, 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Upon reflection and further consideration, we now conclude that review was improvidently granted. Accordingly, these review proceedings are dismissed.

It is so ordered.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

829 So. 2d 900, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 850, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 1960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barber-v-state-fla-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack