Denlinger v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Denlinger v. State

7 So. 3d 522, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 294, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 406, 2009 WL 702805

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMarch 19, 2009

DocketSC06-2247

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 So. 3d 522 (Denlinger 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

Denlinger v. State, 7 So. 3d 522, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 294, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 406, 2009 WL 702805 (Fla. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Delinger v. State, 944 So.2d 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), 1 in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal relied on its decision in Yisrael v. State, 938 So.2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (en banc), disapproved in part, 993 So.2d 952 (Fla.2008), and affirmed the trial court without further elaboration. At the time that petitioner sought to invoke this Court’s discretionary jurisdiction, Yisrael was pending review. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418, 420 (Fla.1981).

*523 We stayed proceedings in this case pending our disposition of Yisrael, in which we: (1) approved the decision of the First District in Gray v. State, 910 So.2d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), and (2) disapproved the reasoning and rule of law articulated by the Fourth District in its underlying decision, but ultimately approved the result reached by that court on other grounds. See Yisrael v. State, 993 So.2d 952, 960-61 (Fla.2008). We subsequently issued an order directing the State to show cause why we should not accept jurisdiction, summarily quash the decision under review, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Yisrael. In response, the State asserts that documents submitted during sentencing complied with this Court’s Yisrael decision. However, the full appellate record is not before the Court, and the Fourth District is a more appropriate forum in which to raise these factual contentions that were not addressed within the four corners of the district court’s opinion below.

Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, quash, and remand to the Fourth District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of our decision in Yisrael.

It is so ordered.

QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, and LABARGA, JJ., concur.

1

. Based upon the materials submitted to this Court, there is confusion concerning whether petitioner's surname is spelled "Delinger,” as reported by the Fourth District, or "Denlinger" as used by the parties. (Emphasis supplied.)

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

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Delinger v. State, 944 So.2d 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), 1 in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal relied on its decision in Yisrael v. State, 938 So.2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (en banc), disapproved in part, 993 So.2d 952 (Fla.2008), and affirmed the trial court without further elaboration. At the time that petitioner sought to invoke this Court’s discretionary jurisdiction, Yisrael was pending review. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418, 420 (Fla.1981).

*523 We stayed proceedings in this case pending our disposition of Yisrael, in which we: (1) approved the decision of the First District in Gray v. State, 910 So.2d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), and (2) disapproved the reasoning and rule of law articulated by the Fourth District in its underlying decision, but ultimately approved the result reached by that court on other grounds. See Yisrael v. State, 993 So.2d 952, 960-61 (Fla.2008). We subsequently issued an order directing the State to show cause why we should not accept jurisdiction, summarily quash the decision under review, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Yisrael. In response, the State asserts that documents submitted during sentencing complied with this Court’s Yisrael decision. However, the full appellate record is not before the Court, and the Fourth District is a more appropriate forum in which to raise these factual contentions that were not addressed within the four corners of the district court’s opinion below.

Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, quash, and remand to the Fourth District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of our decision in Yisrael.

It is so ordered.

QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, and LABARGA, JJ., concur.

1

. Based upon the materials submitted to this Court, there is confusion concerning whether petitioner's surname is spelled "Delinger,” as reported by the Fourth District, or "Denlinger" as used by the parties. (Emphasis supplied.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 So. 3d 522, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 294, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 406, 2009 WL 702805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denlinger-v-state-fla-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack