Crapps v. State

498 So. 2d 415, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 620, 1986 Fla. LEXIS 2934
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided November 26, 1986·No. No. 68485·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

BARKETT, Justice.

We have for review Crapps v. State, 483 So.2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), because of direct and express conflict with Vicknair v. State, 483 So.2d 896 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), approved, 498 So.2d 416 (Fla.1986). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

In Crapps, the First District held that a finding of habitual offender status is an adequate reason to depart from the sentencing guidelines. Since accepting jurisdiction in this case, we have decided that this is not an appropriate reason for departure. Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986).

Accordingly, we quash that portion of the district court’s opinion which permitted a departure because of a determination of habitual offender status and remand this case to the district court with directions to remand to the trial court for resentencing in accordance with Whitehead.

It is so ordered.

MCDONALD, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur. OVERTON, J., dissents.

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

Crapps v. State, 498 So. 2d 415, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 620, 1986 Fla. LEXIS 2934 (Fla. 1986).

498 So. 2d 415 (Crapps v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sarria v. State
501 So. 2d 737 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)