Goene v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Goene v. State

552 So. 2d 337, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2696, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6518, 1989 WL 139531

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 22, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1822

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 552 So. 2d 337 (Goene v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goene v. State, 552 So. 2d 337, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2696, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6518, 1989 WL 139531 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the defendant’s conviction without discussion. We also affirm the defendant’s resentence and reject his argument that the trial court erred in vacating his original sentence and resentencing him to a greater sentence after learning that appellant had misrepresented his identity and criminal record at the original sentencing hearing. See State v. Burton, 314 So.2d 136 (Fla.1975); United States v. Di-[338]*338Francesco, 449 U.S. 117, 101 S.Ct. 426, 66 L.Ed.2d 328 (1980); and United States v. Bishop, 774 F.2d 771 (7th Cir.1985).

Nevertheless, we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as being of great public importance:

Are the holdings in Senior v. State, 502 So.2d 1360 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 511 So.2d 299 (Fla.1987); Katz v. State, 335 So.2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); and Doe v. State, 492 So.2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), valid, in light of the enactment of the sentencing guidelines, for the reason that a complete and accurate prior criminal record of a defendant is essential to a proper computation of a sentence under said guidelines?

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the defendant’s conviction without discussion. We also affirm the defendant’s resentence and reject his argument that the trial court erred in vacating his original sentence and resentencing him to a greater sentence after learning that appellant had misrepresented his identity and criminal record at the original sentencing hearing. See State v. Burton, 314 So.2d 136 (Fla.1975); United States v. Di-[338]*338Francesco, 449 U.S. 117, 101 S.Ct. 426, 66 L.Ed.2d 328 (1980); and United States v. Bishop, 774 F.2d 771 (7th Cir.1985).

Nevertheless, we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as being of great public importance:

Are the holdings in Senior v. State, 502 So.2d 1360 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 511 So.2d 299 (Fla.1987); Katz v. State, 335 So.2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); and Doe v. State, 492 So.2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), valid, in light of the enactment of the sentencing guidelines, for the reason that a complete and accurate prior criminal record of a defendant is essential to a proper computation of a sentence under said guidelines?

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

552 So. 2d 337, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2696, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6518, 1989 WL 139531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goene-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack