State v. Walker

Supreme Court of Florida

State v. Walker

932 So. 2d 1085, 31 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 357, 2006 Fla. LEXIS 981, 2006 WL 1491439

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJune 1, 2006

DocketNo. SC04-1834

StatusPublished

This text of 932 So. 2d 1085 (State v. Walker) 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. Walker, 932 So. 2d 1085, 31 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 357, 2006 Fla. LEXIS 981, 2006 WL 1491439 (Fla. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

QUINCE, J.

We have for review Walker v. State, 880 So.2d 1262, 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), in which the Second District Court of Appeal certified conflict with, inter alia, the First District Court of Appeal’s decision in Hummel v. State, 782 So.2d 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), disapproved by State v. Anderson, 905 So.2d 111, 119 (Fla.2005), and the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Montgomery v. State, 821 So.2d 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), approved, 897 So.2d 1282, 1286 (Fla.2005). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3)-(4), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981).

This Court disapproved Hummel in State v. Anderson, 905 So.2d 111, 119 (Fla.2005), to the extent inconsistent therewith, and approved Montgomery in Montgomery v. State, 897 So.2d 1282, 1286 (Fla.2005). We thus directed the respondent to show cause why this Court should not accept jurisdiction in this case, summarily quash the decision being reviewed, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Montgomery. No response having been filed, the Court has determined that it should accept jurisdiction in this case.

The petition for review is therefore granted, the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision in Walker is quashed, and this matter is remanded for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Montgomery.

It is so ordered.

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

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

QUINCE, J.

We have for review Walker v. State, 880 So.2d 1262, 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), in which the Second District Court of Appeal certified conflict with, inter alia, the First District Court of Appeal’s decision in Hummel v. State, 782 So.2d 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), disapproved by State v. Anderson, 905 So.2d 111, 119 (Fla.2005), and the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Montgomery v. State, 821 So.2d 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), approved, 897 So.2d 1282, 1286 (Fla.2005). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3)-(4), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981).

This Court disapproved Hummel in State v. Anderson, 905 So.2d 111, 119 (Fla.2005), to the extent inconsistent therewith, and approved Montgomery in Montgomery v. State, 897 So.2d 1282, 1286 (Fla.2005). We thus directed the respondent to show cause why this Court should not accept jurisdiction in this case, summarily quash the decision being reviewed, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Montgomery. No response having been filed, the Court has determined that it should accept jurisdiction in this case.

The petition for review is therefore granted, the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision in Walker is quashed, and this matter is remanded for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Montgomery.

It is so ordered.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

932 So. 2d 1085, 31 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 357, 2006 Fla. LEXIS 981, 2006 WL 1491439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-walker-fla-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack