Case ID: so3d_7/html/0524-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Vinton Alrick GRAHAM, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. SC07-1685.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    March 19, 2009.
    Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Elisabeth Porter, Assistant Public Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, FL, for Petitioner.
    Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, Celia Terenzio, Bureau Chief, Jeanine Germanowicz, Assistant Attorneys General, West Palm Beach, FL, for Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

We have for review Graham v. State, 964 So.2d 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal relied upon its decision in Yisrael v. State, 938 So.2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (en banc), disapproved, in part, 993 So.2d 952 (Fla.2008). When the Fourth District decided Graham, Yisrael was already pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418, 420 (Fla.1981).

We stayed proceedings in this ease pending our disposition of Yisrael, in which we: (1) approved the decision of the First District in Gray v. State, 910 So.2d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), and (2) disapproved the reasoning and rule of law articulated by the Fourth District in its underlying decision, but ultimately approved the result reached by that court on other grounds. See Yisrael v. State, 993 So.2d 952, 960-61 (Fla.2008). We subsequently issued an order directing the State to show cause why we should not exercise jurisdiction, summarily quash the decision under review, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Yisrael. In response, the State asserts that documents submitted during sentencing complied with this Court’s Yisrael decision. However, the full appellate record is not before the Court, and the Fourth District is a more appropriate forum in which to raise these factual contentions that were not addressed within the four corners of the district court’s opinion below.

Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, quash, and remand to the Fourth District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of our decision in Yisrael.

It is so ordered.

QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, and LABARGA, JJ., concur.