Massard v. State

504 So. 2d 403, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 150, 1987 Fla. LEXIS 1698
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided March 26, 1987·No. No. 69173·Published

Opinion

BARKETT, Justice.

We took jurisdiction of Massard v. State, 501 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), because of express and direct conflict with [404]*404Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 868 (Fla.1986). Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

The Fourth District, in its opinion below, held that habitual offender status was a sufficient reason to depart from the guidelines. We subsequently held that this is not a permissible reason to depart. Whitehead, 498 So.2d at 867. Since the district court remanded for resentencing and the trial court now has the benefit of our decision in Whitehead, there is no need for our review.

Accordingly, the petition for review is dismissed.

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

Massard v. State, 504 So. 2d 403, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 150, 1987 Fla. LEXIS 1698 (Fla. 1987).

504 So. 2d 403 (Massard v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Massard v. State
501 So. 2d 1289 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Bryan v. Century National Bank
498 So. 2d 868 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1986)