Little v. State
| Citation | 206 So.2d 9 |
| Decision Date | 17 January 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 36135,36135 |
| Parties | Robert Owen LITTLE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
T. Edward Austin, Jr., Public Defender, and James L. Harrison, Asst. Public Defender, for petitioner.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
By a petition for certiorari we have for review a decision of a District Court of Appeal which allegedly conflicts with a prior decision of this Court. See Little v. State, 192 So.2d 793 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1966).
Petitioner, Little, was convicted of robbery. At the conclusion of all the evidence, Little submitted a written request that the trial judge instruct the jury on both grand and petty larceny. The judge refused to instruct on lesser included offenses. On appeal, the District Court affirmed, citing Hand v. State, 188 So.2d 364 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1966) and Stewart v. State, 187 So.2d 358 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1966).
The petitioner here claims that the decision of the District Court conflicts with the prior decision of this Court in Jimenez v. State, 158 Fla. 719, 30 So.2d 292 (1947), and, the decision of the same District Court in Allison v. State, 162 So.2d 922 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1964).
The alleged conflict with Allison v. State, supra, would not convey jurisdiction to this Court. This is so because both Allison and the case now under review were decided by the same District Court. If the two decisions conflicted, the only result would be that the instant decision, being later in point of time, would overrule Allison as the decisional law in the First District. Under the Constitution, jurisdiction is engendered in the Florida Supreme Court on the so-called conflict theory, when a district court decision is in direct confict with a decision of Another district court of appeal or of the Supreme Court on the same point of law. Fla.Const. Art. V, § 4, F.S.A.
We do, however, find jurisdictional conflict with our decision in Jimenez v. State, supra. Moreover, in the instant case, the District Court affirmed the trial court on the authority of its opinion in Hand v. State, supra. This last-cited decision of the District Court was later reviewed by us on certiorari and quashed by our opinion in Hand v. State, 199 So.2d 100 (Fla.1967). Hence, the instant case also conflicts with our decision in Hand v. State, supra.
The instant opinion, on its face, clearly demonstrates the applicability of the 'necessarily included offense' provisions of Fla.Stat. § 919.16, F.S.A. The Court found that the crime of robbery had been proved. This being so, it necessarily follows that the crime of larceny also had been proved--it being a necessarily included lesser offense under the cited statute. Hence, the petitioner was entitled to have the jury instructed on larceny. In Brown v. State, Fla., 206 So.2d 377, opinion filed the 17th day of January 1968, we discussed at length the problem of so-called lesser included offenses. On the authority of that opinion, and for reasons above stated, the instant decision of the District Court is quashed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
It is so ordered.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. State
...need to know the current status of the law to be able to reach the best possible decisions. The case law arising from Little v. State , 206 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1968), which provides that in the event of a conflict between cases from the same district court the more recent case prevails, is to gi......
-
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Marotta
...a change in the Fourth District's position regarding implied conflict preemption in tobacco product liability cases. See Little v. State , 206 So.2d 9, 10 (Fla. 1968) (holding that where intradistrict conflict exists, the decision later in time overrules the former as the decisional law in ......
-
Schreiber v. Chase Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n
...two decisions from the same district court of appeal conflicted, the decision that was later in time overruled the former. Little v. State, 206 So.2d 9, 10 (Fla.1968). In 1972, the Constitution was changed authorizing the Supreme Court discretionary jurisdiction to resolve conflicts between......
-
Coleman v. State
...conflict exists, the decision later in time overrules the former as the decisional law of the district" (citing Little v. State, 206 So. 2d 9, 10 (Fla. 1968))). *. Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959). 6. Womack v. State, 855 So. 2d 1236, 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (holding that a "g......
-
A Not-So-Little Problem with Precedent: Intra-district Conflict in Florida District Courts of Appeal.
...outline how Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.331 changed (or should have changed) the landscape, and explain Little v. State, 206 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1968), a case that has created confusion. From there, we outline Florida district court opinions that come to different conclusions on how to......