Narrative Opinion Summary
The Florida Second District Court of Appeal issued an opinion on October 31, 2018, affirming the decision of the Circuit Court for Pinellas County in the case of Honore L. Clinton (Appellant) v. State of Florida (Appellee). The appeal was made pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) and was presided over by Judge Chris Helinger. The court referenced multiple precedential cases to support its ruling, including Clark v. State, Hughes v. State, Ward v. State, Brinson v. State, Brown v. State, Smith v. State, Ives v. State, and Rangel v. State. The decision was unanimous, with Judges Casanueva, Crenshaw, and Black concurring. The ruling remains subject to potential rehearing motions.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Lower Court's Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court for Pinellas County, indicating that the lower court's ruling was upheld.
Reasoning: The Florida Second District Court of Appeal issued an opinion on October 31, 2018, affirming the decision of the Circuit Court for Pinellas County in the case of Honore L. Clinton (Appellant) v. State of Florida (Appellee).
Appellate Procedure under Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case was reviewed under the specific appellate rule, which governs appeals in certain types of cases in Florida.
Reasoning: The appeal was made pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) and was presided over by Judge Chris Helinger.
Judicial Consensus in Appellate Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision was unanimous, showcasing full agreement among the appellate judges.
Reasoning: The decision was unanimous, with Judges Casanueva, Crenshaw, and Black concurring.
Potential for Rehearingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ruling is still open to the possibility of rehearing motions, indicating it is not final until such opportunities are exhausted.
Reasoning: The ruling remains subject to potential rehearing motions.
Use of Precedential Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court referenced multiple precedential cases to reinforce its ruling, demonstrating reliance on prior decisions.
Reasoning: The court referenced multiple precedential cases to support its ruling, including Clark v. State, Hughes v. State, Ward v. State, Brinson v. State, Brown v. State, Smith v. State, Ives v. State, and Rangel v. State.