Title: Luis A. Perez-Garcia v. State of Florida
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC06-213
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: May 29, 2008

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC06-213 
____________ 
 
LUIS A. PEREZ-GARCIA,  
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Respondent. 
 
[May 29, 2008] 
 
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. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
 
WELLS, J., dissenting. 
 
I dissent from the majority’s summary quashing of the Third District Court 
of Appeal’s decision in this case. 
 
- 2 -
 
First, this case is distinguishable from Hilton v. State, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 
2007).  Hilton involved a cracked windshield on the nondriver’s side of a vehicle.  
Here, the case concerns an inoperable taillight.  
 
Second, clearly the district court expressly adhered to the objective test for 
vehicle stops in accord with Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996), and 
Dobrin v. Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 874 So. 2d 
1171, 1174 (Fla. 2004). 
 
In this case, the district court logically concluded as a matter of law in its 
straightforward holding, that an inoperable left rear taillight is an objectively 
“unsafe condition,” prohibited by section 316.610, Florida Statutes (2003).  This 
legal conclusion is not in conflict with Hilton, Dobrin, or any other case decided by 
this Court or any other district court. 
BELL, J., concurs. 
 
 
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Direct 
Conflict of Decisions 
 
 
Third District - Case No. 3D04-1510 
 
 
(Monroe County) 
 
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Harvey Joel Sepler, Assistant Public 
Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
 
- 3 -
 
- 4 -
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Lisa A. Davis, 
Assistant Attorney General, Miami, Florida, 
 
 
for Respondent