History
  • No items yet
midpage
Kenon v. State
764 So. 2d 575
Fla.
2000
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM.

We have for review Kenon v. State, 724 So.2d 716 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), a decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal citing as controlling authority its opinion in Maddox v. State, 708 So.2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), approved in part, disapproved in part, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418, 420 (Fla.1981). Because the parties have not adequately briefed the merits of the alleged sentencing errors in this case, we quash the decision below and remand for the district court’s consideration in light of our opinion in Maddox.1

It is so ordered.

*576WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

. , We decline to address the other issues raised by Kenon that are not the basis of our jurisdiction. See, e.g., Wood v. State, 750 So.2d 592, 595 n. 3 (Fla.1999); McMullen v. State, 714 So.2d 368, 373 (Fla.1998).

Case Details

Case Name: Kenon v. State
Court Name: Supreme Court of Florida
Date Published: Jul 13, 2000
Citation: 764 So. 2d 575
Docket Number: No. SC94991
Court Abbreviation: Fla.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.