12345678910111213141516171819202122232425
Official - Subject to Final Review
P R O C E E D I N G S(11:05 a.m.)CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: We'll hear argumentsnext in Lawrence V. Florida.Ms. Bonner.ORAL ARGUMENT OF MARY C. BONNERON BEHALF OF PETITIONERMS. BONNER: Mr. Chief Justice, and may itplease the Court:Mr. Lawrence in this case made anapplication for relief in the state courts of Florida,that unfortunately was denied to him, the relief that hesought. Consequently, he came here to the United StatesSupreme Court on a certiorari review and the certiorari,although it was denied, he did present to this Court anissue on which it could have acted had it chosen to act.It is well within the power under 28 U.S.C. 2104 forthis Court to modify, vacate, remand. In other words,this Court can and could have affected that judgment.Our position is that this -- there is adistinction between the, quote, "appellate jurisdiction"under 2104 and the original writ of certiorari whichwould lie in this Court in some instances. When oneuses the appeal, one is not making a new application.We respectfully suggest that the utilization of the3
Alderson Reporting Company