Fernandez v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Fernandez v. State

592 So. 2d 1090, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 107, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 190, 1992 WL 24979

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedFebruary 13, 1992

DocketNo. 76525

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 592 So. 2d 1090 (Fernandez 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

Fernandez v. State, 592 So. 2d 1090, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 107, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 190, 1992 WL 24979 (Fla. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We originally accepted jurisdiction to review Fernandez v. State, 564 So.2d 272 (Fla.2d DCA 1990), upon the assumption that it conflicted with Ree v. State, 565 So.2d 1329 (Fla.1990), modified, State v. Lyles, 576 So.2d 706 (Fla.1991), and Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 838 (Fla.1989). We have now determined that no conflict exists and that the opinion below is consistent with our decisions in State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1989), and Jones v. State, 559 So.2d 204 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 276, 112 L.Ed.2d 232 (1990). Because the defendant is going to be resentenced upon a violation of probation, we call the trial judge’s attention to Williams v. State, 581 So.2d 144 (Fla.1991), and Williams v. State, 594 So.2d 273 (Fla.1992), as well as Lambert, all of which provide guidance for sentencing under such circumstances. We dismiss the petition for review.

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

PER CURIAM.

We originally accepted jurisdiction to review Fernandez v. State, 564 So.2d 272 (Fla.2d DCA 1990), upon the assumption that it conflicted with Ree v. State, 565 So.2d 1329 (Fla.1990), modified, State v. Lyles, 576 So.2d 706 (Fla.1991), and Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 838 (Fla.1989). We have now determined that no conflict exists and that the opinion below is consistent with our decisions in State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1989), and Jones v. State, 559 So.2d 204 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 276, 112 L.Ed.2d 232 (1990). Because the defendant is going to be resentenced upon a violation of probation, we call the trial judge’s attention to Williams v. State, 581 So.2d 144 (Fla.1991), and Williams v. State, 594 So.2d 273 (Fla.1992), as well as Lambert, all of which provide guidance for sentencing under such circumstances. We dismiss the petition for review.

It is so ordered.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

592 So. 2d 1090, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 107, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 190, 1992 WL 24979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fernandez-v-state-fla-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack