State v. Monnar

Supreme Court of Florida

State v. Monnar

976 So. 2d 581, 33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 147, 2008 Fla. LEXIS 272

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedFebruary 28, 2008

DocketNo. SC06-2086

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 976 So. 2d 581 (State v. Monnar) 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. Monnar, 976 So. 2d 581, 33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 147, 2008 Fla. LEXIS 272 (Fla. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Monnar v. State, 939 So.2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), in which the First District Court of Appeal acknowledged (but did not certify) conflict with Galindez v. State, 910 So.2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), approved, 955 So.2d 517 (Fla.2007). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

We stayed proceedings in this case pending disposition of Galindez, which we ultimately decided on harmless error grounds based on a thorough review of the record. See Galindez v. State, 955 So.2d 517 (Fla.2007). We thereafter issued an order directing Petitioner to show cause why our Galindez decision should not control the outcome of the present case. However, Petitioner’s response does not contain enough information or record attachments for us to perform a Galindez harmless error analysis. Moreover, we cannot unilaterally perform such an analysis, as the record is not before this Court.

We accordingly grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed and this matter is remanded to the First District Court for application of a harmless error analysis based on our decision in Galindez and a thorough review of the record.

It is so ordered.

LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, 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 have for review Monnar v. State, 939 So.2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), in which the First District Court of Appeal acknowledged (but did not certify) conflict with Galindez v. State, 910 So.2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), approved, 955 So.2d 517 (Fla.2007). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

We stayed proceedings in this case pending disposition of Galindez, which we ultimately decided on harmless error grounds based on a thorough review of the record. See Galindez v. State, 955 So.2d 517 (Fla.2007). We thereafter issued an order directing Petitioner to show cause why our Galindez decision should not control the outcome of the present case. However, Petitioner’s response does not contain enough information or record attachments for us to perform a Galindez harmless error analysis. Moreover, we cannot unilaterally perform such an analysis, as the record is not before this Court.

We accordingly grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed and this matter is remanded to the First District Court for application of a harmless error analysis based on our decision in Galindez and a thorough review of the record.

It is so ordered.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

976 So. 2d 581, 33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 147, 2008 Fla. LEXIS 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-monnar-fla-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack