Roberts v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Roberts v. State

644 So. 2d 84, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 522, 1994 Fla. LEXIS 1540, 1994 WL 556977

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedOctober 13, 1994

DocketNo. 82612

StatusPublished

This text of 644 So. 2d 84 (Roberts 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

Roberts v. State, 644 So. 2d 84, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 522, 1994 Fla. LEXIS 1540, 1994 WL 556977 (Fla. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We accepted jurisdiction to review Roberts v. State, 623 So.2d 870 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), because the district court affirmed with citation to its prior decision Roberts v. State, 611 So.2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), which was pending review in this Court.¹ See Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418, 420 (Fla.1981).

However, we have since approved the first Roberts decisión. Roberts v. State, 644 So.2d 81 (Fla.1994). Thus, because the decision below is consistent with our decision in Roberts and any conflict that may have existed with Graham v. State, 559 So.2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) has been resolved in favor of the State’s position here, we discharge the petition for review.

It is so ordered.

NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED.

GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING and WELLS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We accepted jurisdiction to review Roberts v. State, 623 So.2d 870 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), because the district court affirmed with citation to its prior decision Roberts v. State, 611 So.2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), which was pending review in this Court.¹ See Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418, 420 (Fla.1981).

However, we have since approved the first Roberts decisión. Roberts v. State, 644 So.2d 81 (Fla.1994). Thus, because the decision below is consistent with our decision in Roberts and any conflict that may have existed with Graham v. State, 559 So.2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) has been resolved in favor of the State’s position here, we discharge the petition for review.

It is so ordered.

NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED.

GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING and WELLS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

644 So. 2d 84, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 522, 1994 Fla. LEXIS 1540, 1994 WL 556977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-state-fla-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack