State v. Swindle

Supreme Court of Florida

State v. Swindle

923 So. 2d 456, 31 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 90, 2006 Fla. LEXIS 145, 2006 WL 300668

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedFebruary 9, 2006

DocketNo. SC04-1931

StatusPublished

This text of 923 So. 2d 456 (State v. Swindle) 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. Swindle, 923 So. 2d 456, 31 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 90, 2006 Fla. LEXIS 145, 2006 WL 300668 (Fla. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

BELL, J.

We have for review Swindle v. State, 919 So.2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), in which the Third District Court of Appeal cited with approval its decision in Espindola v. State, 855 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), rev’d sub nom. Milks v. State, 894 So.2d 924 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 368, 163 L.Ed.2d 86 (2005), and certified conflict with the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision in Milks v. State, 848 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), approved, 894 So.2d 924 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 368, 163 L.Ed.2d 86 (2005). At the time the Third District Court of Appeal issued its decision in Swindle, both Espindola and Milks were pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3)-(4), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981).

The petition for review is granted. On the authority of our decision in Milks v. State, 894 So.2d 924 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 368, 163 L.Ed.2d 86 (2005), the decision under review is quashed, and this matter is remanded to the Third District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Milks.

It is so ordered.

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

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

BELL, J.

We have for review Swindle v. State, 919 So.2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), in which the Third District Court of Appeal cited with approval its decision in Espindola v. State, 855 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), rev’d sub nom. Milks v. State, 894 So.2d 924 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 368, 163 L.Ed.2d 86 (2005), and certified conflict with the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision in Milks v. State, 848 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), approved, 894 So.2d 924 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 368, 163 L.Ed.2d 86 (2005). At the time the Third District Court of Appeal issued its decision in Swindle, both Espindola and Milks were pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3)-(4), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981).

The petition for review is granted. On the authority of our decision in Milks v. State, 894 So.2d 924 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 368, 163 L.Ed.2d 86 (2005), the decision under review is quashed, and this matter is remanded to the Third District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Milks.

It is so ordered.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

923 So. 2d 456, 31 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 90, 2006 Fla. LEXIS 145, 2006 WL 300668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-swindle-fla-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack