State v. K.C.

Supreme Court of Florida

State v. K.C.

873 So. 2d 316, 2004 Fla. LEXIS 643, 2004 WL 905785

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedApril 29, 2004

DocketNo. SC03-1217

StatusPublished

This text of 873 So. 2d 316 (State v. K.C.) 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

State v. K.C., 873 So. 2d 316, 2004 Fla. LEXIS 643, 2004 WL 905785 (Fla. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We originally accepted jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), of the Florida Constitution because the Second District Court of Appeal in K.C. v. State, 848 So.2d 1193 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), certified potential conflict with the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s decision in S.W. v. State, 664 So.2d 39 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). However, we now conclude that these two cases are distinguishable because the statute at issue was amended after the Fifth District’s decision in S.W. Compare § 39.0145, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994) with § 985.216, Fla. Stat. (2001). Therefore, we have determined not to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in this case.

Accordingly, this case is hereby dismissed.

It is so ordered.

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

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

PER CURIAM.

We originally accepted jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), of the Florida Constitution because the Second District Court of Appeal in K.C. v. State, 848 So.2d 1193 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), certified potential conflict with the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s decision in S.W. v. State, 664 So.2d 39 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). However, we now conclude that these two cases are distinguishable because the statute at issue was amended after the Fifth District’s decision in S.W. Compare § 39.0145, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994) with § 985.216, Fla. Stat. (2001). Therefore, we have determined not to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in this case.

Accordingly, this case is hereby dismissed.

It is so ordered.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

873 So. 2d 316, 2004 Fla. LEXIS 643, 2004 WL 905785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kc-fla-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack