Blair v. State, No. 75937
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM; SHAW; GRIMES, J., dissents with an opinion, in which HARDING; GRIMES; HARDING |
| Citation | 598 So.2d 1068 |
| Decision Date | 02 April 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 75937 |
| Parties | Vasten E. BLAIR, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. 598 So.2d 1068, 17 Fla. L. Week. S226 |
Page 1068
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
598 So.2d 1068, 17 Fla. L. Week. S226
Rehearing Denied June 16, 1992.
Order on Mandate of Supreme Court
July 17, 1992.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender and Lynn A. Williams, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Bradley R. Bischoff, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
We originally accepted jurisdiction to review Blair v. State, 559 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), because of apparent conflict with Pope v. State, 561 So.2d 554 (Fla.1990), and Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987). Art. V, Sec. 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. Thereafter, this Court issued several opinions bearing upon the disputed issue, and it is now clear that the decision below conflicts with our decision in Smith v. State, 598 So.2d 1063 (Fla.1992).
Blair was sentenced for armed robbery which was above the recommended guidelines sentence. Although the trial court announced the reason for the departure at the sentencing, the written order listing this reason was not prepared until after the hearing and was not filed until five days after the hearing. This was contrary to the requirements of our opinion Ree v. State, 565 So.2d 1329 (Fla.1990), modified, State v. Lyles, 576 So.2d 706 (Fla.1991), which was published after Blair's sentencing. As a consequence, the district court of appeal reversed Blair's sentence but indicated that upon resentencing the orally
Page 1069
announced reason for departure if put in writing would suffice.Subsequently, on rehearing this Court modified its opinion in Ree by giving it only prospective application. However, in Smith v. State, this Court explained that Ree 's reference to prospectivity included its application to all cases not yet final where the issue was raised. Therefore, the court below properly vacated Blair's sentence and remanded for resentencing. However, under the rationale of Pope v. State and Shull v. Dugger, the trial judge may not impose a new sentence which exceeds the guidelines. We quash the decision below to the extent that it permits a resentencing above the guidelines.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J. and OVERTON, McDONALD, BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
GRIMES, J., dissents with an opinion, in which HARDING, J., concurs.
GRIMES, Justice, dissenting.
This decision illustrates the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State, No. 84155
...finding that he need not reach the jurisdictional issue. The State appealed and the district court reversed, based on Blair v. State, 598 So.2d 1068 (Fla.1992). In Blair, which we issued on the same day as our decision in Smith, we stated that the prospectivity requirement in Ree applied "t......
-
State v. Hogan, No. 92-1117
...is mandated by Ree v. State, 565 So.2d 1329 (Fla.1990), receded from by, Smith v. State, 598 So.2d 1063 (Fla.1992) and Blair v. State, 598 So.2d 1068 (Fla.1992), modified by, State v. Lyles, 576 So.2d 706 (Fla.1991), Pope v. State, 561 So.2d 554 (Fla.1990), and Owens v. State, 598 So.2d 64 ......
-
Brown v. State, No. 93-342
...we reverse and remand this case for re-sentencing within the guidelines. See Owens v. State, 598 So.2d 64 (Fla.1992), and Blair v. State, 598 So.2d 1068 We certify the following question as one of great public importance: Page 737 IN VIEW OF SMITH v. STATE, 598 So.2d 1063 (Fla.1992), DOES T......
-
State v. Davis, No. 93-2835
...Smith v. State, which, as stated, held Ree applicable to all cases not final when mandate issued in Ree, it also decided Blair v. State, 598 So.2d 1068 (Fla.1992). In Blair, the court explained that Ree 's prospectivity requirement applied "to all cases not final where the issue was raised.......
-
Davis v. State, No. 84155
...finding that he need not reach the jurisdictional issue. The State appealed and the district court reversed, based on Blair v. State, 598 So.2d 1068 (Fla.1992). In Blair, which we issued on the same day as our decision in Smith, we stated that the prospectivity requirement in Ree applied "t......
-
State v. Hogan, No. 92-1117
...is mandated by Ree v. State, 565 So.2d 1329 (Fla.1990), receded from by, Smith v. State, 598 So.2d 1063 (Fla.1992) and Blair v. State, 598 So.2d 1068 (Fla.1992), modified by, State v. Lyles, 576 So.2d 706 (Fla.1991), Pope v. State, 561 So.2d 554 (Fla.1990), and Owens v. State, 598 So.2d 64 ......
-
Brown v. State, No. 93-342
...we reverse and remand this case for re-sentencing within the guidelines. See Owens v. State, 598 So.2d 64 (Fla.1992), and Blair v. State, 598 So.2d 1068 We certify the following question as one of great public importance: Page 737 IN VIEW OF SMITH v. STATE, 598 So.2d 1063 (Fla.1992), DOES T......
-
State v. Davis, No. 93-2835
...Smith v. State, which, as stated, held Ree applicable to all cases not final when mandate issued in Ree, it also decided Blair v. State, 598 So.2d 1068 (Fla.1992). In Blair, the court explained that Ree 's prospectivity requirement applied "to all cases not final where the issue was raised.......