State v. Fonseca, No. 77134
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM; SHAW |
| Citation | 598 So.2d 1069 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Rafael FONSECA, Respondent. 598 So.2d 1069, 17 Fla. L. Week. S219 |
| Decision Date | 02 April 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 77134 |
Page 1069
v.
Rafael FONSECA, Respondent.
598 So.2d 1069, 17 Fla. L. Week. S219
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
-
Davis v. State, No. 84155
...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
...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 ......
-
Davis v. State, No. 84155
...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
...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 ......