Albritton v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Albritton v. State

709 So. 2d 101, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 162, 1998 Fla. LEXIS 448, 1998 WL 122246

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMarch 19, 1998

DocketNo. 89364

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 709 So. 2d 101 (Albritton v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albritton v. State, 709 So. 2d 101, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 162, 1998 Fla. LEXIS 448, 1998 WL 122246 (Fla. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Albritton v. State, 681 So.2d 759 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), which conflicts with this Court’s recent opinion in King v. State, 681 So.2d 1136 (Fla.1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

In King, we held that where a trial judge determines that a defendant qualifies as a habitual offender but imposes a non-habitual offender sentence of imprisonment followed by probation, upon a subsequent violation of probation by the defendant, the trial judge on resentencing may not impose a habitual offender sentence. 681 So.2d at 1141. Under Rule 3.701(d)(14) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, “[sjentences imposed after revocation of probation or community control must be in accordance with the [sentencing] guidelines.” Accordingly, we quash the decision below and remand for proceedings consistent with our opinion in King.

It is so ordered.

KOGAN, C.J., OVERTON, SHAW, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., and GRIMES, Senior Justice, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Albritton v. State, 681 So.2d 759 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), which conflicts with this Court’s recent opinion in King v. State, 681 So.2d 1136 (Fla.1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

In King, we held that where a trial judge determines that a defendant qualifies as a habitual offender but imposes a non-habitual offender sentence of imprisonment followed by probation, upon a subsequent violation of probation by the defendant, the trial judge on resentencing may not impose a habitual offender sentence. 681 So.2d at 1141. Under Rule 3.701(d)(14) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, “[sjentences imposed after revocation of probation or community control must be in accordance with the [sentencing] guidelines.” Accordingly, we quash the decision below and remand for proceedings consistent with our opinion in King.

It is so ordered.

KOGAN, C.J., OVERTON, SHAW, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., and GRIMES, Senior Justice, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

709 So. 2d 101, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 162, 1998 Fla. LEXIS 448, 1998 WL 122246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albritton-v-state-fla-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack