Hutchins v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Hutchins v. State

345 So. 2d 711, 1977 Fla. LEXIS 3889

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided March 31, 1977·No. No. 47820·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari reflected apparent jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the writ, Fla.App., 314 So.2d 646. Upon further consideration of the cause, we conclude that no direct conflict of decisions exists as required by Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. Therefore, the writ must be and is hereby discharged.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and ROBERTS (Retired), JJ., concur. BOYD and HATCHETT, JJ., dissent.

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

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari reflected apparent jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the writ, Fla.App., 314 So.2d 646. Upon further consideration of the cause, we conclude that no direct conflict of decisions exists as required by Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. Therefore, the writ must be and is hereby discharged.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and ROBERTS (Retired), JJ., concur. BOYD and HATCHETT, JJ., dissent.

Hutchins v. State, 345 So. 2d 711, 1977 Fla. LEXIS 3889 (Fla. 1977).

Pincite

345 So. 2d 711 (Hutchins v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related