Pearce v. State

208 So. 3d 125, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6436
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Pearce v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 250 So. 3d 791
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 27, 2016·No. No. 1D14-3224·Published

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of the motion for rehearing, the response thereto, and the parties’ oral arguments, this Court grants the motion for rehearing, withdraws the opinion filed December 31, 2015, and substitutes the following opinion in its place.

After an extensive review of the record and consideration of the parties’ arguments at oral argument on the motion for rehearing, we conclude that any error that may have occurred was harmless. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986). Therefore, Pearce’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.

WOLF, ROWE, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

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

Pearce v. State, 208 So. 3d 125, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6436 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

208 So. 3d 125 (Pearce v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. DiGuilio
491 So. 2d 1129 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1986)