From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Smith

Supreme Court of Florida
Apr 8, 1993
616 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1993)

Summary

In State v. Smith, 616 So.2d 52 (Fla. 1993), the supreme court held that it had answered the certified question in State v. Rucker, 613 So.2d 460 (Fla. 1993), quashed our decision in accordance therewith, and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with Rucker.

Summary of this case from Smith v. State

Opinion

No. 80908.

April 8, 1993.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Great Public Importance, First District — Case No. 91-3620 (Hamilton County).

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and James W. Rogers, Bureau Chief — Criminal Appeals, and Joe S. Garwood, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for respondent.


We have for review Smith v. State, 608 So.2d 567 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), wherein the court certified a question of great public importance. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We have since answered the question in State v. Rucker, 613 So.2d 460 (Fla. 1993). We quash Smith and remand for proceedings consistent with Rucker.

It is so ordered.

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


Summaries of

State v. Smith

Supreme Court of Florida
Apr 8, 1993
616 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1993)

In State v. Smith, 616 So.2d 52 (Fla. 1993), the supreme court held that it had answered the certified question in State v. Rucker, 613 So.2d 460 (Fla. 1993), quashed our decision in accordance therewith, and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with Rucker.

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

State v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER, v. KELVIN SMITH, RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Apr 8, 1993

Citations

616 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1993)

Citing Cases

Smith v. State

In Smith v. State, 608 So.2d 567 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), we addressed errors alleged by appellant in case…