Court Opinion

ID: 4802032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-21 01:50:21.215228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:10:13.750429
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

PER CURIAM.
The motion for rehearing en banc is denied. See Hernandez v. State, — So.3d -, 2012 WL 5869660 at *6 (Fla.2012); Anderson v. State, No. 5D12-4335, 2013 WL 183973, at *1 (Fla. 5th DCA Jan.15, 2013); Ferrell v. State, No. 5D12-4333, 2013 WL 183975, at *1 (Fla. 5th DCA Jan.15, 2013); Kennedy v. State, 106 So.3d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); Gonzalez v. State, 101 So.3d 886, 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“We agree with the decision of the Third District in Geter v. State of Florida, [115 So.3d 375, 2012 WL 4448860 at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) ], adopt its reasoning in its entirety, and hold that Miller should not be applied retroactively.”)
CORTINAS, ROTHENBERG, LAGOA, SALTER, FERNANDEZ, and LOGUE, JJ., concur.