State v. Oppenheimer

290 So.3d 1124 (Mem)

STATE of Florida, Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

v.Anthony OPPENHEIMER, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 1D18-2083

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 10, 2020

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

On the motion of a party, a judge in regular active service on the Court requested that a vote be taken on the motion in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.331(d)(1). All judges in regular active service that have not been recused voted on the motion. Less than a majority of those judges voted in favor of rehearing en banc. Accordingly, the motion for rehearing en banc is denied.

Ray, C.J., and Wolf, Lewis, B.L. Thomas, Roberts, Rowe, Osterhaus, Winokur, Jay, Nordby, and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.

Makar, Bilbrey, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., dissent.

B.L. Thomas, J., concurs with opinion, in which Osterhaus, J., joins.

Tanenbaum, J., concurs with opinion, in which Osterhaus, J., joins; and in which B.L. Thomas, J., joins as to Part II only.

Makar, J., dissents with opinion, in which Bilbrey, J., joins.

Kelsey, J., recused.

B.L. Thomas, J., concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc.

I concur in the denial of rehearing en banc for the same reasons stated in State v. Petagine , No. 1D18-2086, 290 So.3d 1106, 2020 WL 1143254 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 10, 2020).

Tanenbaum, J., concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc.

I concur in the denial of rehearing en banc for the same reasons stated in State v. Petagine , No. 1D18-2086, 290 So.3d 1106, 2020 WL 1143254 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 10, 2020).

Makar, J., dissenting in part from denial of rehearing en banc.

I dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissental in State v. Petagine , No. 1D18-2086, 290 So.3d 1106, 2020 WL 1143254 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 10, 2020).