Powell v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Opinion
OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
MAKAR, J.
The State’s motion for rehearing does not challenge our holding that reversal of the defendants’ convictions is required because of the unconstitutional search of their home. Instead the State raises two points of appellate practice, one requiring little discussion, the other more elaboration.
The State’s motion begins by saying our opinion should be clarified because it “implies that the Appellee has to preserve claims” in the trial court. (Triple emphasis in original). The State is correct as to this introductory point of law: State v. Hankerson, 65…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Applegate v. Barnett Bank of TallahasseeSupreme Court of Florida · 1979
- Dade Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBASupreme Court of Florida · 1999
- Robertson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2002
- Bueno v. WorkmanDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2009
- State v. HankersonSupreme Court of Florida · 2011
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.