Case Name: Albert STAFFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2018-12-05
Citations: 259 So. 3d 881
Docket Number: No. 4D13-1532
Parties: Albert STAFFORD, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 259
Pages: 881–882

Head Matter:
Albert STAFFORD, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 4D13-1532
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
[December 5, 2018]
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Paul Edward Petillo, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
ON MOTION TO LIFT THE STAY OF MANDATE

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We initially issued an opinion in this case reversing the trial court's order denying Appellant's motion for postconviction relief and remanding for resentencing pursuant to Atwell v. State , 197 So.3d 1040 (Fla. 2016). We cited our opinion in Michel v. State , 204 So.3d 101 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) and certified conflict with Stallings v. State , 198 So.3d 1081 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) and Williams v. State , 198 So.3d 1084 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). Thereafter, we granted a stay of mandate pending the disposition of the conflict. The Florida Supreme Court subsequently quashed our opinion in Michel . See State v. Michel , 43 Fla. L. Weekly S551, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S298 (Fla. July 12, 2018). Appellant has now filed a motion to lift the stay of mandate and reinstate our opinion following the dictates of Atwell . In response, the State requests that we withdraw our Michel opinion and affirm the trial court's summary denial of Appellant's motion for postconviction relief.
We agree with the State and now lift our stay of mandate and withdraw our prior opinion in the instant case. We affirm the trial court's summary denial of Appellant's motion for postconviction relief pursuant to the supreme court's opinion in Michel . See also Franklin v. State , 43 Fla. L. Weekly S556 (Fla. Nov. 8, 2018) (reaffirming that Atwell is no longer good law and that Franklin's three 1,000-year concurrent sentences with the possibility of parole did not violate the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution or the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Graham v. Florida , 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010) and Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) ).
Prior opinion withdrawn; affirmed .
Ciklin, Conner And Forst, JJ., concur.