Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

976 So. 2d 575

976 So.2d 575

33 Fla.L.WeeklySupp. 136

Hamilton v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided February 21, 2008

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 2008-02-21

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 2011

1 state decisions

Relies on 955 So. 2d 517 - Galindez v. State · 911 So. 2d 813 - Isaac v. State · Hamilton v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2008-02-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1We have for review Hamilton v. State, 914 So.2d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified conflict with Isaac v. State, 911 So.2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction filed, No. SC05-2047 (Fla. Oct.31, 2005). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

¶2*576We stayed proceedings in this case pending disposition of Galindez v. State, 955 So.2d 517 (Fla.2007), which we ultimately decided on harmless error grounds based on a thorough review of the record. We thereafter issued an order directing petitioner to show cause why our Galindezdecision should not control the outcome of the present case. However, petitioner’s response does not contain enough information or record attachments for us to perform a Galindezharmless error analysis. Moreover, we cannot unilaterally perform such an analysis, as the record is not before this Court.

¶3We accordingly grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed and this matter is remanded to the Fourth District Court for application of a harmless error analysis based on our decision in Galindezand a thorough review of the record. Petitioner’s pending motions for clarification are hereby denied as moot.

¶4It is so ordered.

LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.
/976/so2d/575 · .json · Public domain