State of Florida v. Fred O. Burke

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC05-1173 ____________ STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. FRED O. BURKE, Respondent. [April 3, 2008] PER CURIAM. This Court initially accepted jurisdiction to review State v. Burke, 902 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), review granted, 919 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 2006) (table), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified conflict with Hilton v. State, 901 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (en banc), quashed, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2007). We then stayed proceedings in this case pending our disposition of Hilton, which was pending review in this Court. See Hilton v. State, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2007) (quashing the Second District Court of Appeal s decision in Hilton, with which the Fourth District had certified conflict in Burke). When our decision in Hilton became final, we issued an order directing petitioner to show cause why our Hilton decision is not controlling in this case, and thus why we should not discharge jurisdiction and dismiss review. Upon consideration of petitioner s response and respondent s reply thereto, we conclude that jurisdiction was improvidently granted. Accordingly, we hereby discharge jurisdiction and dismiss this review proceeding. It is so ordered. LEWIS, C.J., and ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. WELLS, J., dissents. NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED. Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Certified Direct Conflict of Decisions Fourth District - Case No. 4D03-4879 (Broward County) Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, Celia A. Terenzio, Bureau Chief, Richard Valuntas, and August A. Bonavita, Assistant Attorneys General, West Palm Beach, Florida, for Petitioner Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Marcy K. Allen, Assistant Public Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, Florida, for Respondent -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.