Taylor v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Taylor v. State

759 So. 2d 678, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 404, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 925, 2000 WL 633023

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMay 18, 2000

DocketNo. SC94070

StatusPublished

This text of 759 So. 2d 678 (Taylor v. State) 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

Taylor v. State, 759 So. 2d 678, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 404, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 925, 2000 WL 633023 (Fla. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

SHAW, J.

We have for review Taylor v. State, 711 So.2d 1887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), wherein the district court certified the following question:

Should the holding in State v. Gurican, 576 So.2d 709 (Fla.1991), be re-evaluated in light of Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234, 113 S.Ct. 1199, 122 L.Ed.2d 581 (1993)?

Taylor v. State, 739 So.2d 98 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

We have since answered this question in the affirmative in Griffis v. State, 759 So.2d 668 (Fla.2000), wherein we held that where a defendant absconds and returns before filing an appeal, the misconduct ordinarily should be addressed by the trial court, not the appellate court. Automatic appellate dismissal in such a situation is improper under Ortega-Rodriguez. We quash Taylor and remand for proceedings consistent with Griffis.

It is so ordered.

HARDING, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur. QUINCE, J., concurs in result only.

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