Case Name: Mario KRAJEWSKI, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1993-07-01
Citations: 621 So. 2d 430
Docket Number: No. 80087
Parties: Mario KRAJEWSKI, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Judges: BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, grimes, kogan and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 621
Pages: 430–430

Head Matter:
Mario KRAJEWSKI, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 80087.
Supreme Court of Florida.
July 1, 1993.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Tanja Ostapoff, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Joseph A. Tringali, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We accepted Krajewski v. State, 597 So.2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA1992), for review because of its holding that the objective entrapment defense as explained in Cruz v. State, 465 So.2d 516 (Fla.), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 905, 105 S.Ct. 3527, 87 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985), is still viable. This holding conflicts with State v. Munoz, 586 So.2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA1991), review granted, 598 So.2d 77 (Fla.1992), which held that section 777.201, Florida Statutes (1987), abolished the objective entrapment test. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
The resolution of the conflict will be of no benefit to Krajewski because the district court properly affirmed the trial judge's conclusion that no objective entrapment occurred. Krajewski would like for this finding to be reversed, but, unfortunately for him, the record supports the conclusion of the district court on this issue. This Court will resolve the conflict in Munoz, and, because Krajewski is entitled to no relief regardless of our resolution of the issue, we approve the results of the decision under review.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, grimes, kogan and HARDING, JJ., concur.