Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

802 So. 2d 1140

Docket No. SC96836.

State v. Spioch

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Thomas H. SPIOCH, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided December 13, 2001.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 2001-12-13

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 2007

1 state decisions

Relies on 802 So. 2d 281 - Seagrave v. State · 717 So. 2d 65 - Vural v. State · 742 So. 2d 817 - Spioch v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2001-12-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Kellie A. Nielan, Kristen L. Davenport, and David H. Foxman, Assistant Attorneys General, Daytona Beach, FL, for Petitioner.

¶2James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Susan A. Fagan, Assistant Public Defender, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, FL, for Respondent.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4We have for review the Fifth District Court of Appeal's decision in Spioch v. State,742 So.2d 817 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), which expressly and directly conflicts with the Third District Court of Appeal's opinion in Vural v. State,717 So.2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

¶5Based on our recent decision in Seagrave v. State,802 So.2d 281 (Fla.2001), we quash the Fifth District's decision in Spioch and remand for proceedings consistent with that opinion.

¶6It is so ordered.

¶7WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

/802/so2d/1140 · .json · Public domain