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

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided March 19, 1998·No. No. 89364·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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.

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

Pincite

709 So. 2d 101 (Albritton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related