Case ID: so2d_409/html/1072-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

R. L. W., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. AC-441.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Dec. 18, 1981.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 4, 1982.
    Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
    Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and David P. Gauldin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See R. M. P. v. Jones, 392 So.2d 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), docketed, Case No. 60,223 (Fla., orally argued Aug. 31, 1981). Our affirmance in this case is based upon the same questions addressed in R. M. P. v. Jones, supra. Pursuant to the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court in Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981), reh. pending, mandate in this case will be withheld during the period provided for invoking Supreme Court review and thereafter, if review is sought, pending final disposition of any petition for review herein.

McCORD, LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

While there is some language in Jollie, supra, which suggests that the mandate in the present ease might be withheld pending the Supreme Court’s disposition in the controlling case, a closer reading of Jollie leads us to conclude that the mandate should be withheld during the period for invoking Supreme Court review in the present case, and thereafter, if review is sought, pending final disposition of such petition by the Supreme Court. In reaching this conclusion we have relied on that portion of Jollie which indicates that the purpose of this procedure is to “dispose of the need for separate motions [in the DCA] to stay mandates,” and that “[i]f review of the referenced decision is requested, the parties may seek consolidation” in the Supreme Court.

The motion for rehearing and for modification of stay is accordingly denied.

McCORD, LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.