Case Name: Luis A. PEREZ-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2008-05-29
Citations: 983 So. 2d 578
Docket Number: No. SC06-213
Parties: Luis A. PEREZ-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Judges: LEWIS, C.J., and ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, and CANTERO, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 983
Pages: 578–579

Head Matter:
Luis A. PEREZ-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. SC06-213.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 29, 2008.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Harvey Joel Sepler, Assistant Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, FL, for Petitioner.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, and Lisa A. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, Miami, FL, for Respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We have for review State v. Perez-Garcia, 917 So.2d 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), in which the Third District Court of Appeal expressly relied upon the Second District Court of Appeal's decision in Hilton v. State, 901 So.2d 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (en banc), quashed, 961 So.2d 284 (Fla. 2007). At the time the Third District issued its decision in Perez-Garcia, Hilton was pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981).
We stayed proceedings in this case pending our disposition of Hilton. See Hilton v. State, 961 So.2d 284 (Fla.2007) (quashing the Second District's decision in Hilton, upon which the Third District had relied in Perez-Garcia). When our decision in Hilton became final, we issued an order directing petitioner to show cause why Hilton is not controlling in this case, and thus why the Court should not decline to accept jurisdiction. Upon considering petitioner's response and respondent's reply thereto, we have determined to grant the petition for review in the present case, quash, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Hilton.
Accordingly, we grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed and this matter is remanded to the Third District for reconsideration upon application of this Court's decision in Hilton.
It is so ordered.
LEWIS, C.J., and ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, and CANTERO, JJ., concur.
WELLS, J., dissents with an opinion, in which BELL, J., concurs.