RICHARD NAGEL, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
RICHARD NAGEL, PETITIONER,
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
763 So. 2d 319
Florida Supreme Court (2000)
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Nagel v. State, 789 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), because it cited as controlling authority Goodwin v. State, 721 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), approved in part, disapproved in part, 751 So. 2d 537 (Fla.1999). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418, 420 (Fla.1981). We quash the decision below and remand for further proceedings in light of our opinion in Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537 (Fla.1999).
It is so ordered.
SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. WELLS, C.J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1999)
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Singletary v. Vargas, 721 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Goodwin v. State, 721 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- State v. Demps, 789 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Smith v. Dep't OF Bus. & Prof'l Reg., 789 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)