Nooe v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Nooe v. State

31 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 269, 930 So. 2d 579, 31 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 269, 2006 Fla. LEXIS 767

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMay 4, 2006

DocketNo. SC05-514

StatusPublished

This text of 31 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 269 (Nooe 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

Nooe v. State, 31 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 269, 930 So. 2d 579, 31 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 269, 2006 Fla. LEXIS 767 (Fla. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We originally accepted jurisdiction to review Nooe v. State, 892 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. Upon further consideration, we have determined that jurisdiction was improvidently granted because State v. Diaz, 814 So.2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), was decided on the issue of the statute of limitations pursuant to section 812.035(10), Florida Statutes (1995), and the present case was decided on the basis of the aggregation [580]*580provision in section 812.012(9)(c),¹ Florida Statutes (2001). Accordingly, express and direct conflict does not exist, and this review proceeding is hereby dismissed.

It is so ordered.

PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. LEWIS, J., dissents.

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

PER CURIAM.

We originally accepted jurisdiction to review Nooe v. State, 892 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. Upon further consideration, we have determined that jurisdiction was improvidently granted because State v. Diaz, 814 So.2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), was decided on the issue of the statute of limitations pursuant to section 812.035(10), Florida Statutes (1995), and the present case was decided on the basis of the aggregation [580]*580provision in section 812.012(9)(c),¹ Florida Statutes (2001). Accordingly, express and direct conflict does not exist, and this review proceeding is hereby dismissed.

It is so ordered.

PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. LEWIS, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 269, 930 So. 2d 579, 31 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 269, 2006 Fla. LEXIS 767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nooe-v-state-fla-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack