State v. Smith

Supreme Court of Florida

State v. Smith

762 So. 2d 910, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 603, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1361, 2000 WL 889790

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJuly 6, 2000

DocketNo. SC96974

StatusPublished

This text of 762 So. 2d 910 (State v. Smith) 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. Smith, 762 So. 2d 910, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 603, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1361, 2000 WL 889790 (Fla. 2000).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We have for review the opinion in Smith v. State, 753 So.2d 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), which the district court certified to be in conflict with the opinion of the Third District in McKnight v. State, 727 So.2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), in which the.Third District had, in turn, certified conflict with State v. Cotton, 728 So.2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

We recently quashed the Second District’s decision in Cotton, and approved the First District’s decision in Woods v. State, 740 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), holding that the Act, as properly interpreted by the First District, does not violate separation of powers, and rejecting other constitutional challenges to the Act. See State v. Cotton, Nos. SC94996 & SC95281, — So.2d-, 2000 WL 766521 (Fla. June 15, 2000). Accordingly, for the reasons expressed in Cotton, we quash the Fourth District’s decision in this case with directions to remand the cause to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur. QUINCE, J., dissents with an opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have for review the opinion in Smith v. State, 753 So.2d 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), which the district court certified to be in conflict with the opinion of the Third District in McKnight v. State, 727 So.2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), in which the.Third District had, in turn, certified conflict with State v. Cotton, 728 So.2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

We recently quashed the Second District’s decision in Cotton, and approved the First District’s decision in Woods v. State, 740 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), holding that the Act, as properly interpreted by the First District, does not violate separation of powers, and rejecting other constitutional challenges to the Act. See State v. Cotton, Nos. SC94996 & SC95281, — So.2d-, 2000 WL 766521 (Fla. June 15, 2000). Accordingly, for the reasons expressed in Cotton, we quash the Fourth District’s decision in this case with directions to remand the cause to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur. QUINCE, J., dissents with an opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

762 So. 2d 910, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 603, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1361, 2000 WL 889790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-smith-fla-2000.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack