From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Craft v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
Jan 7, 1988
517 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1988)

Opinion

No. 68421.

January 7, 1988.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Direct Conflict of Decisions Fifth District — Case Nos. 85-1395; 85-1396; 85-1397; 85-1398; 85-1399; 85-1400.

Eric A. Latinsky, Daytona Beach, for Craft and Parnell.

Michael H. Lambert, P.A., Daytona Beach, for Young, Taylor, Burton and Franchini.

Stephen L. Boyles, State Atty. and John V. Doyle, Asst. State Atty., Daytona Beach, for respondent.


We accepted jurisdiction to review State v. Young, 483 So.2d 31 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), because of apparent conflict with, inter alia, State v. Ducksworth, 408 So.2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). However, upon closer examination we do not find the express and direct conflict of decisions required by article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as improvidently granted.

It is so ordered.

McDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Craft v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
Jan 7, 1988
517 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1988)
Case details for

Craft v. State

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH CHARLES CRAFT, ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Jan 7, 1988

Citations

517 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1988)

Citing Cases

State v. McInnis

See South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 103 S.Ct. 916, 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983); Schmerber v. California, 384…

Barnes v. State

Tremblay and Wall were clearly final appeals, as were Sullivan, Gullett and Dortch which involve final orders…