Gilmore v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Gilmore v. State

616 So. 2d 6, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 80, 1993 Fla. LEXIS 31, 1993 WL 8928

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJanuary 21, 1993

DocketNo. 79877

StatusPublished

This text of 616 So. 2d 6 (Gilmore 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

Gilmore v. State, 616 So. 2d 6, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 80, 1993 Fla. LEXIS 31, 1993 WL 8928 (Fla. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

OVERTON, Justice.

We have for review Gilmore v. State, 597 So.2d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), in which the district court addressed the same question we recently answered in State v. Johnson, 616 So.2d 1 (Fla.1993).¹ In accordance with our decision in Johnson, we quash, in part, the decision of the district court in the instant case. Nevertheless, we approve Gilmore’s sentence. The record in this case reflects that none of the amendments to section 775.084, Florida Statutes, contained in chapter 89-280 affected Gilmore’s sentence. Consequently, we approve the result of the district court's decision because Gilmore’s sentence is not altered by our decision in Johnson. We decline to address the other issue raised by Gilmore.

It is so ordered.

BARKETT, C.J., and McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.

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

OVERTON, Justice.

We have for review Gilmore v. State, 597 So.2d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), in which the district court addressed the same question we recently answered in State v. Johnson, 616 So.2d 1 (Fla.1993).¹ In accordance with our decision in Johnson, we quash, in part, the decision of the district court in the instant case. Nevertheless, we approve Gilmore’s sentence. The record in this case reflects that none of the amendments to section 775.084, Florida Statutes, contained in chapter 89-280 affected Gilmore’s sentence. Consequently, we approve the result of the district court's decision because Gilmore’s sentence is not altered by our decision in Johnson. We decline to address the other issue raised by Gilmore.

It is so ordered.

BARKETT, C.J., and McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

616 So. 2d 6, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 80, 1993 Fla. LEXIS 31, 1993 WL 8928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilmore-v-state-fla-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack