From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Skinner v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
May 30, 1985
470 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 1985)

Opinion

No. 65510.

May 30, 1985.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Direct Conflict of Decisions, Fifth District — Case No. 83-1158.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender and Lucinda H. Young, Asst. Public Defender, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, for petitioner.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Kenneth McLaughlin and Belle B. Turner, Asst. Attys. Gen., Daytona Beach, for respondent.


We accepted jurisdiction because of direct and express conflict between the case here, Skinner v. State, 450 So.2d 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), and Golden v. State, 120 So.2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). Since that time the First District Court of Appeal has receded from Golden and expressly adopted the reasoning of the case here, Skinner, and Ballard v. State, 447 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). See Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 775 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), panel decision adopted by court en banc April 25, 1985. The conflict having been resolved while this cause has been pending, we exercise our discretion to decline to proceed further and deny review.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Skinner v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
May 30, 1985
470 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 1985)
Case details for

Skinner v. State

Case Details

Full title:JESSE SKINNER, PETITIONER, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: May 30, 1985

Citations

470 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 1985)

Citing Cases

State v. Kettell

None of these reasons constitute defenses to section 790.19, by its own language, nor does case law so…

Holtsclaw v. State

None of these reasons constitute defenses to section 790.19, by its own language, nor does case law so…