Ward v. State

7 So. 3d 520, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 292, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 397, 2009 WL 702794
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMarch 19, 2009
DocketSC07-1868
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 So. 3d 520 (Ward 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
Ward v. State, 7 So. 3d 520, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 292, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 397, 2009 WL 702794 (Fla. 2009).

Opinion

*521 PER CURIAM.

We have for review Ward v. State, 965 So.2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007), in which the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the admissibility of a Department of Corrections release-date letter as a permissible means of establishing the defendant’s status as a prison-releasee reoffender. See id. at 309-11. In the process, the Third District relied upon the reasoning and rule of law articulated in Yisrael v. State, 938 So.2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (en banc), disapproved in part, 993 So.2d 952 (Fla.2008), and certified a question of great public importance. See Ward, 965 So.2d at 309-11. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

We stayed proceedings in this case pending our disposition of Yisrael, in which we: (1) approved the decision of the First District in Chuy v. State, 910 So.2d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), and (2) disapproved the reasoning and rule of law articulated by the Fourth District in its underlying decision, but ultimately approved the result reached by that court on other grounds. See Yisrael v. State, 993 So.2d 952, 960-61 (Fla.2008). We subsequently issued an order directing the State to show cause why we should not exercise jurisdiction, summarily quash the decision under review, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Yisrael. The State concedes that this case should be remanded for review pursuant to this Court’s decision in Yisrael, and petitioner Ward agrees with this concession.

Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, quash, and remand to the Third District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of our decision in Yisrael.

It is so ordered.

QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, and LABARGA, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ward v. State
11 So. 3d 459 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 So. 3d 520, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 292, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 397, 2009 WL 702794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-state-fla-2009.