Reichman v. State

511 So. 2d 995, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 472, 1987 Fla. LEXIS 2303
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided September 10, 1987·No. No. 69801·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

BARKETT, Justice.

We have for review Reichman v. State, 497 So.2d 293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), in which the district court certified the following question as one of great public importance:

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?

Id. at 294-95. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

We recently answered this question in the negative in Griffis v. State, 509 So.2d 1104 (Fla.1987). Accordingly, we quash the decision of the district court and direct that the case be remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

It is so ordered.

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

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

Reichman v. State, 511 So. 2d 995, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 472, 1987 Fla. LEXIS 2303 (Fla. 1987).

511 So. 2d 995 (Reichman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Felts v. State
537 So. 2d 995 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Brown v. State
513 So. 2d 1107 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
The Florida Bar v. Siegel
511 So. 2d 995 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1987)