Filed: Oct. 19, 2010
Latest Update: Oct. 19, 2010
Summary: PER CURIAM. * We granted defendant's application for a writ of certiorari in this case on April 23, 2010. After hearing oral arguments and reviewing the record of the matter, we conclude the judgment below does not require the exercise of this court's supervisory authority. Accordingly, we recall our order of April 23, 2010 as improvidently granted, and we deny defendant's writ application. VICTORY and WEIMER, JJ., dissents and assign reasons. WEIMER, J., dissenting. I respectfully disse
Summary: PER CURIAM. * We granted defendant's application for a writ of certiorari in this case on April 23, 2010. After hearing oral arguments and reviewing the record of the matter, we conclude the judgment below does not require the exercise of this court's supervisory authority. Accordingly, we recall our order of April 23, 2010 as improvidently granted, and we deny defendant's writ application. VICTORY and WEIMER, JJ., dissents and assign reasons. WEIMER, J., dissenting. I respectfully dissen..
More
PER CURIAM.*
We granted defendant's application for a writ of certiorari in this case on April 23, 2010. After hearing oral arguments and reviewing the record of the matter, we conclude the judgment below does not require the exercise of this court's supervisory authority. Accordingly, we recall our order of April 23, 2010 as improvidently granted, and we deny defendant's writ application.
VICTORY and WEIMER, JJ., dissents and assign reasons.
WEIMER, J., dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Although I believe the trial court and court of appeal did not err, I would not recall the writ after it had been granted.
VICTORY, J., dissenting.
I dissent from the per curiam opinion recalling our prior grant of defendant's writ application. In my view, the Court should have authored a full opinion to consider the issues presented in this case.
