Moody v. State

699 So. 2d 1009, 1997 WL 602699
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided October 2, 1997·No. 90014·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

699 So.2d 1009 (1997)

Kenneth Harold MOODY, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 90014.

Supreme Court of Florida.

October 2, 1997.

Kenneth Harold Moody, Blountstown, Pro Se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Robert J. Krauss, Senior Assistant Attorney General and Dale E. Tarpley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Moody v. State, 696 So.2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), which expressly and directly conflicts with decisions of the Third and Fourth District Courts of Appeal. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

We quash the decision below and remand for further proceedings consistent with our opinion in State v. Hudson, 698 So.2d 831 (Fla.1997).

KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, HARDING and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

WELLS, J., dissents with an opinion, in which GRIMES, J., concurs.

WELLS, Justice, dissenting.

I must dissent for the same reasons stated in my dissent in State v. Hudson, 698 So.2d 831 (Fla.1997).

GRIMES, J., concurs.

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

Moody v. State, 699 So. 2d 1009, 1997 WL 602699 (Fla. 1997).

699 So. 2d 1009 (Moody v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Robbins v. State
813 So. 2d 960 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
New v. State
807 So. 2d 52 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2001)
Winchell v. State
740 So. 2d 572 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Newell v. State
714 So. 2d 434 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1998)
Moore v. State
708 So. 2d 301 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)