State v. Spioch

Full title: STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, v. THOMAS H. SPIOCH, Respondent

Court: Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Dec 13, 2001

802 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 2001)

Opinion

No. SC96836

Opinion filed December 13, 2001.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Direct Conflict Fifth District — Case No. 5D97-2616 (Brevard County).

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Kellie A. Nielan, Kristen L. Davenport, and David H. Foxman, Assistant Attorneys General, Daytona Beach, Florida, for Petitioner James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Susan A. Fagan, Assistant Public Defender, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, Florida, for Respondent

PER CURIAM

We have for review the Fifth District Court of Appeal's decision inSpioch v. State, 742 So.2d 817 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), which expressly and directly conflicts with the Third District Court of Appeal's opinion inVural v. State, 717 So.2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). We have jurisdiction.See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

Based on our recent decision in Seagrave v. State, 26 Fla. L. Weekly S481 (Fla. July 12, 2001), we quash the Fifth District's decision inSpioch and remand for proceedings consistent with that opinion.

It is so ordered.

WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.