State v. Jenkins

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Jenkins

596 So. 2d 685, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 321, 1992 WL 10155

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 22, 1992

DocketNo. 90-2736

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 596 So. 2d 685 (State v. Jenkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Jenkins, 596 So. 2d 685, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 321, 1992 WL 10155 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinions

EN BANC OPINION ON MOTION TO STAY

PER CURIAM.

We have considered en banc whether to stay the issuance of a mandate in each of several opinions of this court involving sentences imposed by trial courts below the three-year mandatory minimum requirements of section 893.13(l)(e)(l), Florida Statutes (1989). In each case, the trial court referred the defendant to a drug treatment program, applying section 397.-12, Florida Statutes (1989).

Although this court consistently has required application of the mandatory minimums, this court certified the issue to the supreme court in State v. Scates, 585 So.2d 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). However, other opinions of the court have not certified the issue. See, e.g., State v. Walker, 588 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Notwithstanding the certification, it remains the judgment of the court that discretionary sentences below the prescribed mandatory minimum in such cases are unlawful. Additionally, issuing stays of the mandates in these appeals might well be construed as justifying further sentences below the mandatory minimum sentence notwithstanding our opinions clearly holding such sentences illegal. Therefore, we order that all motions for stay of mandate pending supreme court review of that issue will be denied by this court. Accordingly, the ap-pellee’s motion to stay mandate is denied.

DOWNEY, LETTS, HERSEY, DELL, GUNTHER, STONE, WARNER, GARRETT and FARMER, JJ., concur. POLEN, J., dissents with opinion, with which GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur.

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

EN BANC OPINION ON MOTION TO STAY

PER CURIAM.

We have considered en banc whether to stay the issuance of a mandate in each of several opinions of this court involving sentences imposed by trial courts below the three-year mandatory minimum requirements of section 893.13(l)(e)(l), Florida Statutes (1989). In each case, the trial court referred the defendant to a drug treatment program, applying section 397.-12, Florida Statutes (1989).

Although this court consistently has required application of the mandatory minimums, this court certified the issue to the supreme court in State v. Scates, 585 So.2d 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). However, other opinions of the court have not certified the issue. See, e.g., State v. Walker, 588 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Notwithstanding the certification, it remains the judgment of the court that discretionary sentences below the prescribed mandatory minimum in such cases are unlawful. Additionally, issuing stays of the mandates in these appeals might well be construed as justifying further sentences below the mandatory minimum sentence notwithstanding our opinions clearly holding such sentences illegal. Therefore, we order that all motions for stay of mandate pending supreme court review of that issue will be denied by this court. Accordingly, the ap-pellee’s motion to stay mandate is denied.

DOWNEY, LETTS, HERSEY, DELL, GUNTHER, STONE, WARNER, GARRETT and FARMER, JJ., concur. POLEN, J., dissents with opinion, with which GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

596 So. 2d 685, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 321, 1992 WL 10155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jenkins-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack