Florida v. Rigterink, No. 08–1229.
| Decision Date | 01 March 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 08–1229. |
| Citation | 559 U.S. 965,130 S.Ct. 1235 (Mem),176 L.Ed.2d 175 |
| Parties | FLORIDA, v. Thomas William RIGTERINK. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Florida for further consideration in light of Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50, 130 S.Ct. 1195, 175L.Ed.2d 1009, 2010 WL 605603 (2010)
.
, dissenting.
In my view, the judgment below rested upon an adequate and independent state ground and the Court therefore lacks jurisdiction over this case. See Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50, ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1195, 175 L.Ed.2d 1009 (2010) (slip op., at 1–8)
(STEVENS, J., dissenting). Indeed, the independence of the state-law ground in this case is even clearer than in Powell because the Florida Supreme Court expressly acknowledged its obligation “ ‘to give independent legal import to every phrase and clause contained’ ” in the State Constitution, 2 So.3d 221, 241 (2009) (quoting Traylor v. State, 596 So.2d 957, 962 (Fla.1992)), and stated that “the federal Constitution sets the floor, not the ceiling, and this Court retains the ability to interpret the right against self-incrimination afforded by the Florida Constitution more broadly than that afforded by its federal counterpart,” 2 So.3d, at 241.
Because the independence of the state-law ground is “clear from the face of the opinion,” Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983), we do not have power to vacate the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Mills v. State
-
State v. Muntean
...and that he or she was—and continually remained—free to leave at any time”), rev'd on other grounds by Florida v. Rigterink, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1235, 176 L.Ed.2d 175 (2010) (mem.) (reversing and remanding case to state supreme court based on adequacy of Miranda warning). Although defe......
-
Wilson v. State, Case No. 2D15–1730
...are heavily fact dependent." McAdams, 193 So.3d at 833 (citing Rigterink v. State, 2 So.3d 221, 246 (Fla. 2009), vacated on other grounds, 559 U.S. 965, 130 S.Ct. 1235, 176 L.Ed.2d 175 (2010) ). Nonetheless, we continue to examine precedent as it sheds probative light on our factual examina......
- State v. McAdams