Roebuck v. State

Vincent ROEBUCK, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided May 15, 2008.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 2008-05-15

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 2009

4 state decisions

Relies on 536 So. 2d 321 - Jaggers v. State · 710 So. 2d 669 - Cliburn v. State · Museau v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2008-05-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner.

¶2Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney General, Bureau Chief, and Giselle Lylen Rivera, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Respondent.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4We initially accepted jurisdiction to review Roebuck v. State, 953 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), a decision in which the First District Court of Appeal certified conflict with the Second District Court of Appeal's decisions in Jaggers v. State, 536 So.2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), and Cliburn v. State, 710 So.2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Upon further consideration, we have now determined that Roebuck is not in conflict with Jaggers and Cliburn and that jurisdiction should be discharged. Accordingly, this review proceeding is dismissed.

¶5It is so ordered.

¶6LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.