From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Byrd v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
Jul 8, 2004
880 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 2004)

Summary

holding that First District opinion declaring statute invalid was not the actual decision of the district court because only one of three judges signed it and the other two judges concurred in result—affirming the trial court's denial of Byrd's motion to dismiss—but did not join in the opinion

Summary of this case from Pole v. State

Opinion

No. SC03-284.

July 8, 2004.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Assistant Public Defender, and Edward L. Harvey, Assistant Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Robert Wheeler, Bureau Chief and Giselle Lylen Rivera, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Respondent.


We originally accepted jurisdiction to review Byrd v. State, 834 So.2d 872 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), pursuant to article V, section 3(b)( 1) and 3(b)( 3) of the Florida Constitution, on the ground that the district court's decision declared invalid a state statute and construed a provision of the state constitution. What we did not recognize at the time, and what neither party brought to our attention, was that the opinion declaring the statute invalid was signed by only one judge on the district court's three-judge panel; the other two judges concurred in the result (affirming the trial court's denial of Byrd's motion to dismiss) but did not join in the opinion. Thus, the opinion declaring the statute invalid was not the actual decision of the district court; it was the concurring opinion of one judge on the panel. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)( 1), Fla. Const. (providing this Court with mandatory jurisdiction to hear appeals from "decisions of district courts of appeal declaring invalid a state statute"); cf. Jenkins v. State, 385 So.2d 1356, 1359 (Fla. 1980) ("[T]he language and expressions found in a dissenting or concurring opinion cannot support jurisdiction under section 3(b)(3) because they are not the decision of the district court of appeal."). This case is hereby dismissed.

It is so ordered.

PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Byrd v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
Jul 8, 2004
880 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 2004)

holding that First District opinion declaring statute invalid was not the actual decision of the district court because only one of three judges signed it and the other two judges concurred in result—affirming the trial court's denial of Byrd's motion to dismiss—but did not join in the opinion

Summary of this case from Pole v. State

In Byrd v. State, 880 So.2d 616, 617 (Fla. 2004), we determined that we lacked jurisdiction over a case in which a concurring opinion declared a statute invalid, because Jenkins required that the language warranting jurisdiction be included in the majority opinion.

Summary of this case from Jackson v. State
Case details for

Byrd v. State

Case Details

Full title:Lawanda BYRD, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Jul 8, 2004

Citations

880 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 2004)

Citing Cases

Pole v. State

Id. at 840 n. 1. “A concurring in result only opinion indicates agreement only with the decision, that is,…

Maybusher v. State

The petition to invoke all writs jurisdiction is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See St. Paul Title Ins.…