Case Name: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Matthew KENNY, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1991-11-07
Citations: 587 So. 2d 1322
Docket Number: No. 77611
Parties: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Matthew KENNY, Respondent.
Judges: SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, barkett, grimes, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 587
Pages: 1322–1323

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Matthew KENNY, Respondent.
No. 77611.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Nov. 7, 1991.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and David R. Gemmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for petitioner.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and Robert D. Rosen, Asst. Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We have for review State v. Kenny, 576 So.2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), based on express and direct conflict with Carter v. State, 571 So.2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), Flowers v. State, 567 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), and Walker v. State, 546 So.2d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We recently quashed Flowers and Carter and approved cases that reached the same result as the court below. Flowers v. State, 586 So.2d 1058 (Fla.1991); Carter v. State, 586 So.2d 340 (Fla.1991); State v. Worley, 586 So.2d 338 (Fla.1991). Accordingly, the opinion below is approved. We disapprove the opinion in Walker.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, barkett, grimes, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.