State v. Fonseca, No. 77134

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; SHAW
Citation598 So.2d 1069
PartiesSTATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Rafael FONSECA, Respondent. 598 So.2d 1069, 17 Fla. L. Week. S219
Decision Date02 April 1992
Docket NumberNo. 77134

Page 1069

598 So.2d 1069
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Rafael FONSECA, Respondent.
No. 77134.
598 So.2d 1069, 17 Fla. L. Week. S219
Supreme Court of Florida.
April 2, 1992.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal--Certified Great Public Importance, Third District--Case No. 89-2541, Dade County.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Charles M. Fahlbusch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for petitioner.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robert Burke, Asst. Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Fonseca v. State, 570 So.2d 424, 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), which certified the same question of great public importance answered in Smith v. State, 598 So.2d 1063 (Fla.1992):

Should Pope v. State [, 561 So.2d 554 (Fla.1990),] be applied retroactively to sentences imposed prior to April 26, 1990?

We have jurisdiction. Art. V, Sec. 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. As in Smith, the certified question is answered in the affirmative. While we find the district court's conclusions consistent with our views in Smith, we nevertheless quash the opinion under review and remand for reconsideration in light of Jones v. State, 559 So.2d 204 (Fla.1990). We do not address the other issues raised by the parties.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, BARKETT, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Davis v. State, No. 84155
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 20, 1995
    ...our decision in Smith, we stated that the prospectivity requirement in Ree applied "to all cases not final where the issue was raised." 598 So.2d at 1069. Because Davis failed to raise the Ree issue in his initial appeal, the district court determined that the trial court improperly granted......
  • Fonseca v. State, No. 89-2541
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 23, 1993
    ...424 (Fla. 3d DCA1990). The Florida Supreme Court quashed this court's opinion and remanded for further reconsideration. State v. Fonseca, 598 So.2d 1069 (Fla.1992). On remand, based on the State's proper confession of error, we once again affirm the defendant's conviction for second-degree ......
2 cases
  • Davis v. State, No. 84155
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 20, 1995
    ...our decision in Smith, we stated that the prospectivity requirement in Ree applied "to all cases not final where the issue was raised." 598 So.2d at 1069. Because Davis failed to raise the Ree issue in his initial appeal, the district court determined that the trial court improperly granted......
  • Fonseca v. State, No. 89-2541
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 23, 1993
    ...424 (Fla. 3d DCA1990). The Florida Supreme Court quashed this court's opinion and remanded for further reconsideration. State v. Fonseca, 598 So.2d 1069 (Fla.1992). On remand, based on the State's proper confession of error, we once again affirm the defendant's conviction for second-degree ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT