Coyne v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Coyne v. State

755 So. 2d 108, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 242, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 627, 2000 WL 298660

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMarch 23, 2000

DocketNo. SC96012

StatusPublished

This text of 755 So. 2d 108 (Coyne 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

Coyne v. State, 755 So. 2d 108, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 242, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 627, 2000 WL 298660 (Fla. 2000).

Pincite

Opinions

WELLS, J.

We have for review Coyne v. State, 732 So.2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court in a per curiam decision without a written opinion, citing Harbaugh v. State, 711 So.2d 77, 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). We accepted jurisdiction because Harbaugh was pending in this Court upon a certified question of great public importance as to whether, when a defendant requests that the jury determine the existence of prior DUI convictions in a felony DUI trial, the bifurcated procedure of State v. Rodriguez, 575 So.2d 1262 (Fla.1991), should be amended in light of United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 115 S.Ct. 2310, 132 L.Ed.2d 444 (1995). See Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.

In Harbaugh, we answered the certified question in the affirmative and remanded [109]*109to the district court for further proceedings in accord with our opinion. State v. Harbaugh, 754 So.2d 691 (Fla.2000). Accordingly, we quash the decision of the Fourth District in Coyne to the extent that it is inconsistent with our opinion in Har-baugh, and we remand for further proceedings in accord with Harbaugh.

It is so ordered.

HARDING, C.J., and ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. SHAW, J., dissents with an opinion.

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

WELLS, J.

We have for review Coyne v. State, 732 So.2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court in a per curiam decision without a written opinion, citing Harbaugh v. State, 711 So.2d 77, 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). We accepted jurisdiction because Harbaugh was pending in this Court upon a certified question of great public importance as to whether, when a defendant requests that the jury determine the existence of prior DUI convictions in a felony DUI trial, the bifurcated procedure of State v. Rodriguez, 575 So.2d 1262 (Fla.1991), should be amended in light of United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 115 S.Ct. 2310, 132 L.Ed.2d 444 (1995). See Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.

In Harbaugh, we answered the certified question in the affirmative and remanded [109]*109to the district court for further proceedings in accord with our opinion. State v. Harbaugh, 754 So.2d 691 (Fla.2000). Accordingly, we quash the decision of the Fourth District in Coyne to the extent that it is inconsistent with our opinion in Har-baugh, and we remand for further proceedings in accord with Harbaugh.

It is so ordered.

HARDING, C.J., and ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. SHAW, J., dissents with an opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

755 So. 2d 108, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 242, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 627, 2000 WL 298660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coyne-v-state-fla-2000.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack