Highsmith v. State
This text of 522 So. 2d 340 (Highsmith 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.
Opinion
We have for review Highsmith v. State, 508 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), affirming petitioner’s convictions and sentences and certifying the same question set out in VanTassell v. State, 498 So.2d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), quashed, 512 So.2d 181 (Fla. 1987), as a question of great public importance. The certified question is:
Does a trial court’s statement, made at the time of departure from the sentencing guidelines, that it would depart for any one of the reasons given, regardless of whether both valid and invalid reasons are found on review, satisfy the standard set forth in Albritton v. State [476 So.2d 150, (Fla.1985) ]?
512 So.2d at 182.
We answered the question in the negative in Griffis v. State, 509 So.2d 1104 (Fla.1987). Accordingly, we quash the decision below and remand to the district court for review in light of our decision in Grif-fis.
It is so ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
522 So. 2d 340, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 57, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 132, 1988 WL 6019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/highsmith-v-state-fla-1988.