State v. Head
485 So. 2d 1285, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 166, 1986 Fla. LEXIS 1933
Opinion
We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, to answer the following certified question of great public importance:
WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT FINDS THAT A SENTENCING COURT RELIED UPON A REASON OR REASONS THAT ARE IMPERMISSIBLE UNDER FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.701 IN MAKING ITS DECISION TO DEPART FROM THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES, SHOULD THE APPELLATE COURT EXAMINE THE OTHER REASONS GIVEN BY THE SENTENCING COURT TO DETERMINE IF THOSE REASONS JUSTIFY A DEPARTURE FROM THE GUIDELINES OR SHOULD THE CASE BE REMANDED FOR A RESENTENC-ING?
Head v. State, 473 So.2d 18, 19 (Fla.3d DCA 1985). We answered the identical question in State v. Young, 476 So.2d 161 (Fla.1985). Accord Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985). The decision below, consistent with holdings of this Court, is approved.
It is so ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Head, 485 So. 2d 1285, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 166, 1986 Fla. LEXIS 1933 (Fla. 1986).
485 So. 2d 1285 (State v. Head) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Head v. State
473 So. 2d 18 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
State v. Young
476 So. 2d 161 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)
Albritton v. State
476 So. 2d 158 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)