State v. Knickerbocker
Opinion
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Michael C. KNICKERBOCKER, Respondent.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., James W. Rogers, Bureau Chief and Amelia L. Beisner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for petitioner.
George F. Schaefer, Gainesville, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Knickerbocker v. State, 604 So.2d 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), which certified the following question of great public importance:
May a sentence for a life felony be enhanced pursuant to the provisions of the habitual offender statute?
Id. at 878. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Consistent with Lamont v. State, 610 So.2d 435 (Fla. 1992), we answer in the negative and approve the decision below to the extent it addressed the certified question. We otherwise quash the opinion below and remand for reconsideration in light of State v. Rucker, 613 So.2d 460 (Fla. 1993).
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
616 So. 2d 33 (State v. Knickerbocker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.