Caruthers v. State (232 So. 3d 441, 2017)

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Levine, J.

In a motion for rehearing, the state for the first time cites Dean v. State, 230 So.3d 420, 2017 WL 3774647 (Fla. Aug. 31, 2017), an opinion which issued before oral argument in this case. In a concurring opinion in. Dean, three justices stated that “where the evidence supports the charged offense as well as the requested instruction on a necessarily lesser included offense, any error in failing to give the requested instruction is harmless because the defendant is not entitled to an opportunity for a jury pardon.” See id. (Polston, J., concurring). Because Dean did not involve, a majority, we are compelled to follow Daugherty v. State, 211 So.3d 29 (Fla. 2017). See Santos v. State, 629 So.2d 838, 840 (Fla. 1994) (“Under the Florida Constitution, both a binding decision and a binding prec-edential opinion are created to the extent that at least four members of the Court have joined in an opinion and decision.”) (citing art. V, § 3(a), Fla. Const.) (footnotes omitted); Accordingly, the motion for rehearing is denied.

Gerber, C.J., and May, J., concur.