State of Florida v. Lawrence Andrew Ingram

I concur in result only. While I agree that the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s *728opinion cannot stand, I disagree with the majority’s unusual procedural maneuver to vacate Ingram v. State, 164 So.3d 676 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014), and avoid addressing the question that was certified by the Fifth District to be of great public importance.1 Instead, I would quash Ingram on the merits, based on express disagreement with the Fifth District’s statutory construction analysis, and answer the certified question in the negative.

In my view, the Fifth District erroneously interpreted the pertinent provisions…