Lawler v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lawler v. State

609 So. 2d 658, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11919, 1992 WL 324858

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 12, 1992

DocketNo. 92-0202

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 609 So. 2d 658 (Lawler v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lawler v. State, 609 So. 2d 658, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11919, 1992 WL 324858 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The state urges this court to stay the instant appeal pending the Florida Supreme Court’s review of Williams v. State, 593 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), rev. granted, No. 79,507 (Fla. July 6, 1992). However, this court has routinely recertified the question in Williams, reversed the defendant’s conviction, and remanded to the trial court with directions to discharge the defendant. See Nero v. State, 604 So.2d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Palmer v. State, 602 So.2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Johnson v. State, 599 So.2d 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Sheffield v. State, 599 So.2d 1057 (Fla.1992). Given this court’s ruling in Kelly v. State, 593 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 599 So.2d 1280 (Fla.1992), that appellant has been deprived due process of law, we see no reason to delay consideration of the instant appeal. Accordingly, we recertify the question in Williams, reverse appellant’s conviction, and remand to the trial court with directions to discharge appellant.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The state urges this court to stay the instant appeal pending the Florida Supreme Court’s review of Williams v. State, 593 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), rev. granted, No. 79,507 (Fla. July 6, 1992). However, this court has routinely recertified the question in Williams, reversed the defendant’s conviction, and remanded to the trial court with directions to discharge the defendant. See Nero v. State, 604 So.2d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Palmer v. State, 602 So.2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Johnson v. State, 599 So.2d 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Sheffield v. State, 599 So.2d 1057 (Fla.1992). Given this court’s ruling in Kelly v. State, 593 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 599 So.2d 1280 (Fla.1992), that appellant has been deprived due process of law, we see no reason to delay consideration of the instant appeal. Accordingly, we recertify the question in Williams, reverse appellant’s conviction, and remand to the trial court with directions to discharge appellant.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

609 So. 2d 658, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11919, 1992 WL 324858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawler-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack