Case Name: Michael ADAMS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1993-05-20
Citations: 618 So. 2d 732
Docket Number: No. 80239
Parties: Michael ADAMS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Judges: overton, McDonald, shaw, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 618
Pages: 732–733

Head Matter:
Michael ADAMS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 80239.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 20, 1993.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Anne Moorman Reeves and Larry B. Henderson, Asst. Public Defenders, Dayto-na Beach, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Anthony J. Golden and Laura Rush, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We initially accepted jurisdiction of State v. Adams, 600 So.2d 1302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), based on apparent conflict with State v. Hunter, 586 So.2d 319, 322 (Fla.1991). See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Upon further review of the record and after hearing argument of counsel, we perceive that no actual conflict exists. Accordingly, this review is dismissed.
It is so ordered.
overton, McDonald, shaw, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
BARKETT, C.J., concurs specially with an opinion.
NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED.