Florida Decisions

Court have for review D.W.A. v. State, 909 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal certified the same question as was then pending review in this Court via V.K.E. v. State, 902 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), quashed, 934 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2006). Court have jurisdiction. See art. V, S 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
Court have since answered the certified question in a manner contrary to the decision presently on review. See V.K.E. v. State, 934 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2006). Court have thus determined, and respondent agrees, that court should exercise its jurisdiction to grant the petition for review, quash the decision under review, and remand to the Fifth District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of this Court's decision in V.K.E.
It is so ordered.

Court have for review R.R.K. v. State, 912 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (on motions for rehearing and certification), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal certified the same question as was then pending review in this Court via V.K.E. v. State, 902 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), quashed, 934 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2006).
Court have since answered the certified question in a manner contrary to the decision presently on review. See V.K.E. v. State, 934 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2006). Court have thus determined, and respondent agrees, that court should exercise its jurisdiction to grant the petition for review, quash the decision under review, and remand to the Fifth District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of this Court's decision in V.K.E.
It is so ordered.

Court have for review State v. Gaston, 911 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), in which the Third District Court of Appeal certified conflict with Green v. State, 895 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), quashed, 944 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2006). In Gaston, the defendant moved to withdraw a plea of guilty to a charge of carrying a concealed firearm entered a decade earlier. 911 So. 2d at 258. Gaston asserted that the trial court did not advise him that the plea might subject him to deportation and that he was subsequently advised by an immigration attorney that he would be subjected to deportation proceedings if he applied for residency. Id. The trial court granted the motion but the Third District reversed, concluding that Gaston had not stated a prima facie case by pleading that he was specifically threatened with deportation because of the plea. Id.
In Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2000
court quash the Third District decision in this case and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Green.
It is so ordered.

Court have for review S.L.G. v. State, 912 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (on motion for rehearing), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal certified the same question as was then pending review in this Court via V.K.E. v. State, 902 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), quashed, 934 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2006). Court have since answered the certified question in a manner contrary to the decision presently on review. See V.K.E. v. State, 934 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2006). Court have thus determined, and respondent agrees, that court should exercise its jurisdiction to grant the petition for review, quash the decision under review, and remand to the Fifth District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of this Court's decision in V.K.E.
It is so ordered.

Court have for review A.B.H. v. State, 923 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (table), in which the Second District Court of Appeal cited V.K.E. v. State, 902 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), quashed, 934 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2006), which was then pending review in this Court. Court have since quashed V.K.E. See V.K.E. v. State, 934 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2006). Court have thus determined, and respondent agrees, that court should accept jurisdiction and grant the petition for review, quash the decision under review, and remand to the Second District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of this Court's decision in V.K.E.
It is so ordered.

Court have for review B.J.H. v. State, 910 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (on motion for rehearing), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal cited V.K.E. v. State, 902 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), quashed, 934 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2006), and certified the same question as was then pending review in this Court in V.K.E. Court have since quashed V.K.E. and answered the certified question in a manner contrary to the decision presently on review. See V.K.E. v. State, 934 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2006). Court have thus determined, and respondent agrees, that court should exercise its jurisdiction to grant the petition for review, quash the decision under review, and remand to the Fifth District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of this Court's decision in V.K.E.
It is so ordered.

On its own motion, the Court amends Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).1 The amendment adds the requirement that an order denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a) expressly state that the movant has the right to appeal within thirty days of rendition of the order. The amendment was published for comment in The Florida Bar News on October 1, 2006. All comments received were in support of the amendment.
Accordingly, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is amended as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by underscoring. The amendment shall become effective immediately upon the release of this opinion.
It is so ordered.

The Juvenile Court Rules Committee has filed a petition proposing "fast track" amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure in response to the 2006 Florida Legislature's amendment of various Florida Statutes. The Committee proposes amending the following eight existing rules and seven existing forms: rule 8.240 (Computation, Continuance, Extension, and Enlargement of Time); rule 8.250 (Examinations, Evaluations, and Treatment); rule 8.257 (General Magistrates); rule 8.305 (Shelter Petition, Hearing, and Order); rule 8.330 (Adjudicatory Hearings); rule 8.400 (Case Plans); rule 8.410 (Approval of Case Plans); rule 8.415 (Judicial Review of Dependency Cases); form 8.929 (Detention Order); form 8.947 (Disposition Order Delinquency); form 8.950 (Restitution Order); form 8.951 (Motion for Juvenile Sexual Offender Placement); form 8.961 (Shelter Order); form 8.966 (Adjudication Order Dependency); and form 8.970 (Order on Judicial Review). The Committee further proposes the adoption of the following three new rules and two new forms: rule 8.420 (Case Plan Amendments); rule 8.425 (Permanency Hearings); rule 8.430 (Modification of Permanency Order); form 8.975 (Order Authorizing Child to Enter into Residential Leasehold Before the Child's 18th Birthday); and form 8.976 (Proposed Relative Placement). The proposals were published by The Florida Bar in the November 1, 2006, edition of The Florida Bar News and comments were invited. No comments were received.
Having considered the petition, court adopt the Committee's proposals with one addition and one alteration to the proposed amendments as set forth below.
Court amend rule 8.240 to establish time limitations on proceedings to establish a permanent placement for a child in the dependency system and to list the only permissible circumstances under which the juvenile court may grant continuances in the proceedings. Court do this by the addition of a new subdivision (d)(4) to list the exceptions to time limitations and the amendment of renamed subdivision (d)(5), which was previously numbered (d)(4). However, court add the word "reasonable" to the beginning of subdivision (d)(4)(D) such that the subdivision states: "Reasonable periods of delay necessary to accomplish notice of the hearing to the parent or legal guardian."

The Juvenile Court Rules Committee has filed a petition proposing "fast track" amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure in response to the 2006 Florida Legislature's amendment of various Florida Statutes. The Committee proposes amending the following eight existing rules and seven existing forms: rule 8.240 (Computation, Continuance, Extension, and Enlargement of Time); rule 8.250 (Examinations, Evaluations, and Treatment); rule 8.257 (General Magistrates); rule 8.305 (Shelter Petition, Hearing, and Order); rule 8.330 (Adjudicatory Hearings); rule 8.400 (Case Plans); rule 8.410 (Approval of Case Plans); rule 8.415 (Judicial Review of Dependency Cases); form 8.929 (Detention Order); form 8.947 (Disposition Order Delinquency); form 8.950 (Restitution Order); form 8.951 (Motion for Juvenile Sexual Offender Placement); form 8.961 (Shelter Order); form 8.966 (Adjudication Order Dependency); and form 8.970 (Order on Judicial Review). The Committee further proposes the adoption of the following three new rules and two new forms: rule 8.420 (Case Plan Amendments); rule 8.425 (Permanency Hearings); rule 8.430 (Modification of Permanency Order); form 8.975 (Order Authorizing Child to Enter into Residential Leasehold Before the Child's 18th Birthday); and form 8.976 (Proposed Relative Placement). The proposals were published by The Florida Bar in the November 1, 2006, edition of The Florida Bar News and comments were invited. No comments were received.
Having considered the petition, court adopt the Committee's proposals with one addition and one alteration to the proposed amendments as set forth below.
Court amend rule 8.240 to establish time limitations on proceedings to establish a permanent placement for a child in the dependency system and to list the only permissible circumstances under which the juvenile court may grant continuances in the proceedings. Court do this by the addition of a new subdivision (d)(4) to list the exceptions to time limitations and the amendment of renamed subdivision (d)(5), which was previously numbered (d)(4). However, court add the word "reasonable" to the beginning of subdivision (d)(4)(D) such that the subdivision states: "Reasonable periods of delay necessary to accomplish notice of the hearing to the parent or legal guardian."

The Juvenile Court Rules Committee has filed a petition proposing "fast track" amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure in response to the 2006 Florida Legislature's amendment of various Florida Statutes. The Committee proposes amending the following eight existing rules and seven existing forms: rule 8.240 (Computation, Continuance, Extension, and Enlargement of Time); rule 8.250 (Examinations, Evaluations, and Treatment); rule 8.257 (General Magistrates); rule 8.305 (Shelter Petition, Hearing, and Order); rule 8.330 (Adjudicatory Hearings); rule 8.400 (Case Plans); rule 8.410 (Approval of Case Plans); rule 8.415 (Judicial Review of Dependency Cases); form 8.929 (Detention Order); form 8.947 (Disposition Order Delinquency); form 8.950 (Restitution Order); form 8.951 (Motion for Juvenile Sexual Offender Placement); form 8.961 (Shelter Order); form 8.966 (Adjudication Order Dependency); and form 8.970 (Order on Judicial Review). The Committee further proposes the adoption of the following three new rules and two new forms: rule 8.420 (Case Plan Amendments); rule 8.425 (Permanency Hearings); rule 8.430 (Modification of Permanency Order); form 8.975 (Order Authorizing Child to Enter into Residential Leasehold Before the Child's 18th Birthday); and form 8.976 (Proposed Relative Placement). The proposals were published by The Florida Bar in the November 1, 2006, edition of The Florida Bar News and comments were invited. No comments were received.
Having considered the petition, court adopt the Committee's proposals with one addition and one alteration to the proposed amendments as set forth below.
Court amend rule 8.240 to establish time limitations on proceedings to establish a permanent placement for a child in the dependency system and to list the only permissible circumstances under which the juvenile court may grant continuances in the proceedings. Court do this by the addition of a new subdivision (d)(4) to list the exceptions to time limitations and the amendment of renamed subdivision (d)(5), which was previously numbered (d)(4). However, court add the word "reasonable" to the beginning of subdivision (d)(4)(D) such that the subdivision states: "Reasonable periods of delay necessary to accomplish notice of the hearing to the parent or legal guardian."

Corbblin Bush seeks review of the district court decision in Bush v. State, 886 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), based on express and direct conflict with Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2003). Court approve in part and quash in part the decision below as explained herein.

Defendant appeals an order of the circuit court denying his motion to vacate his conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of death, and petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons explained below, court affirm the trial court's order and deny the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Defendant appeals an order of the circuit court denying his motion to vacate his conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of death, and petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons explained below, court affirm the trial court's order and deny the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Court have for review Lawrence v. State, 918 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), in which the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order revoking probation based upon its prior decision in State v. Harden, 873 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), aff'd, 938 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2006). At the time the Third District Court issued its decision in Lawrence, Harden was pending review in this Court. Court recently affirmed the Third District Court's decision in Harden. See State v. Harden, 938 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2006). As a result, court issued an order on September 20, 2006, directing the appellant to show cause why this Court should not summarily affirm Lawrence in light of our decision in Harden. Appellant agreed that "Harden is controlling in the instant case, and summary affirmance is appropriate." The appellee had previously submitted a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot because the State had entered a Nolle Prosequi on September 7, 2006, as to all charges pending against him.
Based upon our decision in Harden and the appellant's response to the order to show cause, we summarily affirm the decision of the Third District Court in Lawrence. Appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal as moot is denied.
It is so ordered.