Highsmith v. State

522 So. 2d 340, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 57, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 132, 1988 WL 6019
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided January 28, 1988·No. No. 70913·Published

Opinion

BARKETT, Justice.

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.

MCDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur,

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

Highsmith v. State, 522 So. 2d 340, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 57, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 132, 1988 WL 6019 (Fla. 1988).

522 So. 2d 340 (Highsmith v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

VanTassell v. State
512 So. 2d 181 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1987)
State v. Marshall
476 So. 2d 150 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)
VanTassell v. State
498 So. 2d 649 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Griffis v. State
509 So. 2d 1104 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1987)