You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

HONORE L. CLINTON v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Citation: Not availableDocket: 18-1400

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; October 31, 2018; Florida; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

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 Decision

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)

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 Decisions

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 Rehearing

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 Cases

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.