Tucker v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Tucker v. State

720 So. 2d 209, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 544, 1998 Fla. LEXIS 1905, 1998 WL 716938

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedOctober 15, 1998

DocketNo. 92558

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 720 So. 2d 209 (Tucker 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

Tucker v. State, 720 So. 2d 209, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 544, 1998 Fla. LEXIS 1905, 1998 WL 716938 (Fla. 1998).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We have for review the decision in Tucker v. State, 706 So.2d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). We accepted jurisdiction to answer the following question certified to be of great public importance:

SHOULD THE DECISION IN PARKER V. STATE, 408 So.2d 1037 (Fla.1982), BE OVERRULED IN FAVOR OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENTIARY REQUIREMENTS FOR PROOF OF CONVICTED FELON STATUS IN FIREARM VIOLATION CASES ESTABLISHED FOR FEDERAL COURTS IN OLD CHIEF V. UNITED STATES, 519 U.S. 172, 117 S.Ct. 644, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997)?

Id. at 94. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

We recently answered the same certified question in the affirmative in Brown v. State, 719 So.2d 882 (Fla.1998). We also remanded the case for a new trial because we were unable to conclude that the erroneous introduction of the substance of Brown’s prior felony convictions to the jury was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id., at 884 n. 1. In so doing, we made clear that our decision was prospective only, except for the instant [210]*210case and “those cases pending where the issue has been preserved.” Id. at 884 n. 1. Because we find that to be the case here, we answer the certified question in the affirmative, quash the decision under review, and remand this case to the Third District for reconsideration in light of our decision in Brown.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, KOGAN, ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ., concur. HARDING, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion. OVERTON and WELLS, JJ., dissent.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have for review the decision in Tucker v. State, 706 So.2d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). We accepted jurisdiction to answer the following question certified to be of great public importance:

SHOULD THE DECISION IN PARKER V. STATE, 408 So.2d 1037 (Fla.1982), BE OVERRULED IN FAVOR OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENTIARY REQUIREMENTS FOR PROOF OF CONVICTED FELON STATUS IN FIREARM VIOLATION CASES ESTABLISHED FOR FEDERAL COURTS IN OLD CHIEF V. UNITED STATES, 519 U.S. 172, 117 S.Ct. 644, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997)?

Id. at 94. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

We recently answered the same certified question in the affirmative in Brown v. State, 719 So.2d 882 (Fla.1998). We also remanded the case for a new trial because we were unable to conclude that the erroneous introduction of the substance of Brown’s prior felony convictions to the jury was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id., at 884 n. 1. In so doing, we made clear that our decision was prospective only, except for the instant [210]*210case and “those cases pending where the issue has been preserved.” Id. at 884 n. 1. Because we find that to be the case here, we answer the certified question in the affirmative, quash the decision under review, and remand this case to the Third District for reconsideration in light of our decision in Brown.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, KOGAN, ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ., concur. HARDING, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion. OVERTON and WELLS, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

720 So. 2d 209, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 544, 1998 Fla. LEXIS 1905, 1998 WL 716938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-state-fla-1998.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack