McCray v. StateMcCray v. State
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Adkins
Lead Opinion
By реtitiоn fоr reviеw we have before us a deсisiоn оf thе Third District Court оf Appеal, McCray v. State, 397 So.2d 1229 (Flа. 3d DCA 1981), whiсh аllеgеdly соnfliсts with thе decisions of this Court in Mahaun v. State, 377 So.2d 1158 (Fla.1979), and Redondo v. State, 403 So.2d 954 (Fla.1981). We havе jurisdiсtiоn. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
The question presented in this case is the same as that presented in Pitts v. State, 425 So.2d 542 (Fla.1983). Based on Pitts, we approve the decision of the district court in this case.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD and McDONALD, JJ., concur. OVERTON, J., dissents with an opinion.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting:
I dissent for the reasons expressed in my dissent in Pitts v. State, 425 So.2d 542 (Fla.1983), as well as the dissent by Judge Hendry in McCray v. State, 397 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). I find that Mahaun v. State, 377 So.2d 1158 (Fla.1979), and Redondo v. State, 403 So.2d 954 (Fla.1981), control this situation.