From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Porter v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
Dec 23, 1993
629 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1993)

Opinion

No. 80954.

December 23, 1993.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Great Public Importance, First District — Case No. 92-1053.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Carl S. McGinnes, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., James W. Rogers, Bureau Chief, Crim. Appeals and Charlie McCoy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.


We have for review Porter v. State, 609 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), in which the district court of appeal certified the same question we recently answered in the negative in Seabrook v. State, 629 So.2d 129 (Fla. 1993). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed in Seabrook, we once again answer the question in the negative and approve the decision below.

It is so ordered.

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


Summaries of

Porter v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
Dec 23, 1993
629 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1993)
Case details for

Porter v. State

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER LYNN PORTER, PETITIONER, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Dec 23, 1993

Citations

629 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1993)

Citing Cases

Rudolph v. State

Affirmed. See Porter v. State, 629 So.2d 834 (Fla. 1993); Seabrook v. State, 629 So.2d 129 (Fla. 1993);…

Reshard v. State

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Porter v. State, 629 So.2d 834 (Fla. 1993); Seabrook v. State, 629 So.2d 129 (Fla.…