MIRANDA v. STATE, 181 So.3d 1188 (2016)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number: inflco20160115286
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jan. 14, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 14, 2016
Summary: PER CURIAM . We initially accepted jurisdiction to review the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in State v. Miranda, 137 So.3d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014), based on express and direct conflict. See art. V, 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. After further consideration, we conclude that jurisdiction was improvidently granted. Accordingly, we hereby discharge jurisdiction and dismiss this review proceeding. It is so ordered. NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED. LABARGA, C.J., and P
Summary: PER CURIAM . We initially accepted jurisdiction to review the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in State v. Miranda, 137 So.3d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014), based on express and direct conflict. See art. V, 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. After further consideration, we conclude that jurisdiction was improvidently granted. Accordingly, we hereby discharge jurisdiction and dismiss this review proceeding. It is so ordered. NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED. LABARGA, C.J., and PA..
More
PER CURIAM.
We initially accepted jurisdiction to review the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in State v. Miranda, 137 So.3d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014), based on express and direct conflict. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. After further consideration, we conclude that jurisdiction was improvidently granted. Accordingly, we hereby discharge jurisdiction and dismiss this review proceeding.
It is so ordered.
NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED.
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
Source: Leagle
