Court Opinion

ID: 9413263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-01 22:55:45.828315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:42:10.261247
License: Public Domain

Justice Stevens,
dissenting.
In my view, the judgment below rested upon an adequate and independent state ground, and the Court therefore lacks jurisdiction over this case. See Florida v. Powell, ante, at 65-71, 130 S. Ct. 1195, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1009 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Indeed, the independence of the state-law ground in this case is even clearer than in Powell because the Florida Supreme Court expressly acknowledged its obligation “ ‘to give independent legal import to every phrase and clause contained’ ” in the State Constitution, 2 So. 3d 221, 241 (2009) (quoting Traylor v. State, 596 So. 2d 957, 962 (Fla. 1992)), and stated that “the federal Constitution sets the floor, not the ceiling, and this Court retains the ability to interpret the right against self-incrimination afforded by the Florida Constitution more broadly than that afforded by its federal counterpart,” 2 So. 3d, at 241. Because the independence of the state-law ground is “clear from the face of the opinion,” Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041, 103 S. Ct. 3469, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1201 (1983), we do not have power to vacate the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court.
I therefore respectfully dissent.