Boyd v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Boyd v. State

587 So. 2d 1311, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 728, 1991 Fla. LEXIS 1912, 1991 WL 231592

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedNovember 7, 1991

DocketNos. 77347, 77883, 77884, 77581 and 77,587

StatusPublished

This text of 587 So. 2d 1311 (Boyd 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

Boyd v. State, 587 So. 2d 1311, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 728, 1991 Fla. LEXIS 1912, 1991 WL 231592 (Fla. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review the consolidated cases of Boyd v. State, 572 So.2d 1032, 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), Doughty v. State, 578 So.2d 65, 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), Howarth v. State, 578 So.2d 66, 66 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), Natvik v. State, 574 So.2d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), and Zozak v. State, 576 So.2d 312, 312 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal certified the following question of great public importance:

DO FLORIDA’S UNIFORM SENTENCING GUIDELINES REQUIRE THAT LEGAL CONSTRAINT POINTS BE ASSESSED FOR EACH OFFENSE COMMITTED WHILE UNDER LEGAL CONSTRAINT?

We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4).

We answered this question in the negative in Flowers v. State, 586 So.2d 1058 (Fla.1991). Accordingly, we quash the decisions below and remand these consolidated cases for reconsideration consistent with our opinion in Flowers.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, barkett, grimes, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.

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