State v. Rodriguez

Supreme Court of Florida

State v. Rodriguez

920 So. 2d 624, 30 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 495, 2005 Fla. LEXIS 1342, 2005 WL 1475362

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided June 23, 2005·No. No. SC04-390·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

WELLS, J.

We have on appeal a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal declaring invalid a state statute. Rodriguez v. State, 906 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Rodriguez also expressly and directly conflicts with the decision in Sult v. State, 839 So.2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (3), Fla. Const.

For the reasons stated in our opinion in Suit v. State, 906 So.2d 1013 (Fla. 2005), we affirm the decision of the Third District in Rodriguez.

It is so ordered.

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

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

WELLS, J.

We have on appeal a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal declaring invalid a state statute. Rodriguez v. State, 906 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Rodriguez also expressly and directly conflicts with the decision in Sult v. State, 839 So.2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (3), Fla. Const.

For the reasons stated in our opinion in Suit v. State, 906 So.2d 1013 (Fla. 2005), we affirm the decision of the Third District in Rodriguez.

It is so ordered.

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

State v. Rodriguez, 920 So. 2d 624, 30 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 495, 2005 Fla. LEXIS 1342, 2005 WL 1475362 (Fla. 2005).

Pincite

920 So. 2d 624 (State v. Rodriguez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related