ANN ELLIOT BARBER, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Fla. | 2002-10-10
Nos. SC01-1006, SC01-1007
ANSTEAD, C.J., SHAW, WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ„ and HARDING, Senior Justice, concur.
829 So. 2d 900 Florida Supreme Court (2002)

Topics

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We initially accepted jurisdiction to review Barber v. State, 781 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), and State v. Barber, 783 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), based on misapplication of this Court’s opinion in State v. Norris, 168 So. 2d 541, 543 (Fla.1964), and express and direct conflict with Smith v. State, 700 So. 2d 446, 446-47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), Audano v. State, 641 So. 2d 1356, 1358-59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), Dibble v. State, 347 So. 2d 1096, 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), Malcolm v. State, 415 So. 2d 891, 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and Smith v. State, 743 So. 2d 141, 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Upon reflection and further consideration, we now conclude that review was improvidently granted. Accordingly, these review proceedings are dismissed.

It is so ordered.

ANSTEAD, C.J., SHAW, WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ„ and HARDING, Senior Justice, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw