CARA L.J. SWISHER, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY AND NORMA JEAN WOODCOCK, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court's custody order, based on a facially unconstitutional statute, must be reconsidered.
The trial court awarded custody of a minor child to the paternal grandparents based on section 61.13(7), Florida Statutes. Subsequent court decisions …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Dependency Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises from the trial court’s order awarding custody of the minor child to Appellees, the child’s paternal grandparents. In its decision rendered August 3, 1999, the trial court relied upon the standards articulated in cases construing section 61.13(7), Florida Statutes. Subsequent decisions of this court and the Florida Supreme Court have declared that stat ute facially unconstitutional.1 The trial court did not have the benefit of these opinions.
We, therefore, remand the case for the trial court’s reconsideration in light of the Richardson decision, without prejudice to Appellees to amend their petition to insti-" tute further proceedings, including, but not limited to, a dependency action pursuant to chapter 39, Florida Statutes. During the pendency of these proceedings, the minor child will remain in Appellees’ physical custody.
BOOTH, MINER and KAHN, JJ., CONCUR. . Richardson v. Richardson, 766 So. 2d 1036 (Fla.2000); Kleckner v. Kleckner, 751 So. 2d 116, 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)(citing Richardson v. Richardson, 734 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), affirmed, 766 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 2000)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. State, 780 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…firm Miller’s convictions, but find that the trial court erred in sentencing him both as a PRR and as a habitual felony offender. We, therefore, reverse this sentence and remand for the trial court to sentence him only as a PRR. See Miller v. State, 772 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. . Larry Brown, the third victim, did not testify at trial. . Section 90.803(3) provides as follows: (3) Then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition. (a) A statemen…
-
Campbell v. State, 29 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…See § 782.04, Florida Statutes (2003). It simply says, murder. That the description of murder is generic does not prevent a defendant from being sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender for having committed that offense. See e.g., Miller v. State, 772 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Souza, 889 So. 2d at 956. Applying this logic, the Souza court held that DUI manslaughter is a qualifying PRR offense, because it is a varying degree of the enumerated offense of manslaughter. The same analysis applies here. B…
-
Souza v. State, 889 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…See § 782.04, Florida Statutes (2003). It simply says, murder. That the description of murder is generic does not prevent a defendant from being sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender for having committed that offense. See, e.g., Miller v. State, 772 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Thus, we are convinced that the most logical reading of the PRR Act is that DUI manslaughter is a variety of manslaughter, and that the legislature intended to include it within the ambit of the PRR Act. Accordingly, we affirm…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. Richardson, 766 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 2000)
- Richardson v. Richardson, 734 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Kleckner v. Kleckner, 751 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)