EARNEST COLLINS, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 Florida Supreme Court remanded this appeal to the District Court of Appeal, Second District, directing the lower appellate court to provide a majority opinion explaining its reversal of the trial court judgment. The court thereafter adopted a modified version of Judge Pierce's original reversal opinion as its official majority opinion.
A reversal must be supported by a majority opinion setting forth the theory and reasoning therefor. The court adopted a modified version of Judge Pierce's original opinion as the proper majority opinion, deleting certain conclusory portions and a footnote while maintaining the core reversal.
“the reversal by this Court was 'without a majority opinion setting forth the reasons therefor'”
The Supreme Court's identification of the procedural defect requiring remand
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a criminal appeal where the District Court of Appeal initially reversed the trial court judgment, but the reversal lacked a clear ma…
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 Petition For Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
In the above stated cause the judgment of the Trial Court was on March IS, 1967, reversed by this Court, Acting Chief Judge Pierce writing an opinion of reversal, Judge Hobson concurring in the conclusion only, and Associate Judge Driver dissen;.i’-|n' with opinion. Thereafter, upon petition for cer-tiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, on July 12, 1967, reported in 201 So.2d 225, entered Order pointing out that the reversal by this Court was “without a majority opinion setting forth the reasons therefor”, and requesting this Court to “prepare and adopt a majority opinion setting forth the theory and reasoning upon which the judgment of reversal” was based. Jurisdiction was temporarily relinquished to this Court for such purpose with directions that the cause be then returned to the Supreme Court for “further review.”
Pursuant to such directions, a majority of the panel of this Court originally sitting in consideration of the cause upon appeal have agreed upon a majority opinion of reversal by deleting from the original opinion of Judge Pierce appearing in 197 So.2d beginning at page 574, that portion thereof beginning with the words “Confirmation of the soundness of our decision here * * * ” appearing on page 587 of said volume, and ending with the words “ ‘ * * * until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned’ ”, being the conclusion of a quotation taken from the so-called Miranda case, appearing on page 588 of said volume, deleting also footnote 14 of said opinion, and renumbering footnote 15 to read footnote 14. As so deleted and modified, said opinion is hereby now adopted as the majority opinion of this Court.
A copy of this Memorandum Order, certified by the Clerk of this Court, shall be forthwith forwarded to the Supreme Court of Florida as per previous directions.
PIERCE, Acting C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
DRIVER, B. J., Associate Judge, dissents with opinion.
(dissenting).
For the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion in this cause, as reported in 197 So. 2d beginning at page 588,1 dissent from this majority opinion of reversal but in doing so concur in that part of this Memorandum which deletes the described portions of the original majority opinion reported in 197 So.2d 574, supra.
DRIVER, B. J., Associate Judge
(dissenting).
For the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion in this cause, as reported in 197 So. 2d beginning at page 588,1 dissent from this majority opinion of reversal but in doing so concur in that part of this Memorandum which deletes the described portions of the original majority opinion reported in 197 So. 2d 574, supra.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Statewright v. State, 278 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…during interrogation.” (Citations omitted.) James v. State, 223 So. 2d 52, 55 (Fla.App.1969). See also State v. Craig, 237 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1970); State v. Graham, 240 So. 2d 486 (Fla.App.1970); Collins v. State, 197 So. 2d 574 (Fla.App.) on remand 203 So. 2d 28 (Fla.App.1967). This view has also been followed by the federal courts and by other state court decisions. Groshart v. United States, 392 F. 2d 172 (9th Cir. 1968); Windsor v. United States, 389 F. 2d 530 (5th Cir. 1968); Brown v. Heyd, 277 F.Supp.…
-
Murphy v. State, 252 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…standards must be applied. Our review of the record before us convinces us that this point must be decided adversely to the appellant’s contention, upon the rule stated in Collins v. State, Fla. App.1967, 197 So. 2d 574, modified for other reasons 203 So. 2d 28. We further hold that upon the application of the test set forth in Pamplin v. Mason, 364 F. 2d 1 (5th Cir. 1966) no violation of appellant’s constitutional right to a fair trial appears. Point 2, which urges that the trial court erred in denying a…
Authorities Cited
- Earnest Collins, Jr. v. State, 197 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- State v. Earnest Collins, Jr., 201 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1967)