Case ID: so2d_425/html/0001-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. OVERTON, Justice,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Don M. McCRAY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 60667.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Jan. 6, 1983.
    Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, for petitioner.
    
      Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

By petition for review we have before us a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal, McCray v. State, 397 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), which allegedly conflicts with the decisions of this Court in Mahaun v. State, 377 So.2d 1158 (Fla.1979), and Redondo v. State, 403 So.2d 954 (Fla.1981). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

The question presented in this case is the same as that presented in Pitts v. State, 425 So.2d 542 (Fla.1983). Based on Pitts, we approve the decision of the district court in this case.

It is so ordered.

ALDERMAN, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

OVERTON, J., dissents with an opinion.

OVERTON, Justice,

dissenting:

I dissent for the reasons expressed in my dissent in Pitts v. State, 425 So.2d 542 (Fla.1983), as well as the dissent by Judge Hendry in McCray v. State, 397 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). I find that Mahaun v. State, 377 So.2d 1158 (Fla.1979), and Redondo v. State, 403 So.2d 954 (Fla.1981), control this situation.