TOMESHA MARIE HOWARD, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 quashed the First District's decision in State v. Howard and remanded for reconsideration in light of the court's decision in Hilton v. State.
The First District Court of Appeal relied on a Second District decision (Hilton v. State) which was later quashed by the Florida Supreme Court. The Fl…
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 Certified Conflict cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review State v. Howard, 909 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), in which the First District Court of Appeal expressly relied upon Hilton v. State, 901 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (en banc), quashed, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla.2007), as authority, and certified conflict with State v. Burke, 902 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), review dismissed, No. SC05-1173, 979 So. 2d 952, 2008 WL 877967 (Fla. Apr. 3, 2008). At the time the First District issued its decision in Howard, both Hilton and Burke were pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3)-(4), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1981).
We stayed proceedings in this case pending our disposition of Hilton. See Hilton v. State, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla.2007) (quashing the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision in Hilton, upon which the First District had relied in Howard). When our decision in Hilton became final, we issued an order directing respondent to show cause why we should not exercise jurisdiction, quash the Howard decision, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Hilton. Respondent has conceded that it cannot show such cause.
We accordingly grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed and this matter is remanded to the First District for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Hilton.
It is so ordered.
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Tristan Hilton v. State, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2007)
- Tristan Hilton v. State, 901 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- State v. Burke, 902 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- State v. Tomesha Marie Howard, 909 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- State v. Burke, 979 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2008)