Opinion ID: 1819622
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the lack of jurisdiction

Text: The majority cites article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution as the basis for exercising jurisdiction. Article V, section 3(b)(3) provides that this Court may review any decision of a district court of appeal that expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the supreme court on the same question of law.  (Emphasis added.) The Third District decision in Kasischke v. State, 946 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), does not expressly and directly conflict with the Second District decision in Taylor v. State, 821 So.2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). As the Third District correctly noted, the Second District's decision in Taylor did not expressly address the same question of law the Third District addressed in Kasischke, 946 So.2d at 1161. Specifically, the Second District in Taylor only required that the probationary condition track the statutory language of section 948.03(5)(a)(7) but did not address whether or not the phrase `relevant to the offender's deviant behavior pattern' modified the ban on viewing or possessing pornographic material. Kasischke, 946 So.2d at 1161. Given the absence of express and direct conflict on the same question of law, this Court should discharge the case.