Case Name: Michael VASILINDA, etc., Petitioner, v. William LOZANO and The State of Florida, Respondents
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1993-05-05
Citations: 622 So. 2d 4
Docket Number: No. 93-979
Parties: Michael VASILINDA, etc., Petitioner, v. William LOZANO and The State of Florida, Respondents.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and FERGUSON and LEVY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 622
Pages: 4–5

Head Matter:
Michael VASILINDA, etc., Petitioner, v. William LOZANO and The State of Florida, Respondents.
No. 93-979.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 5, 1993.
Steel, Hector & Davis, Talbot D’Alem-berte and Thomas R. Julin, Miami, for petitioner.
Black & Furci, Roy Black, Miami, Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Richard L. Shiffrin, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and FERGUSON and LEVY, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(d), a member of the media challenges an order of the trial court restricting televising the voir dire examination and the sitting jurors in State v. Loza-no. Because the case has been transferred to the Ninth Circuit, where the trial will take place, and the trial judge has been assigned by the Supreme Court as a judge of that circuit "to dispose of all matters considered by him in said case," we conclude that this proceeding must be transferred to the Fifth District Court of Appeal, which has appellate jurisdiction over Ninth Circuit cases. Raymond, James & Assocs. v. Wieneke, 479 So.2d 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), is not at all contrary to this conclusion because it did not involve an assignment of the trial judge to the transferee circuit.
Cause transferred.