Blair v. State, No. 75937

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; SHAW; GRIMES, J., dissents with an opinion, in which HARDING; GRIMES; HARDING
Citation598 So.2d 1068
Decision Date02 April 1992
Docket NumberNo. 75937
PartiesVasten E. BLAIR, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. 598 So.2d 1068, 17 Fla. L. Week. S226

Page 1068

598 So.2d 1068
Vasten E. BLAIR, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 75937.
598 So.2d 1068, 17 Fla. L. Week. S226
Supreme Court of Florida.
April 2, 1992.
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
9 practice notes
  • Davis v. State, No. 84155
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 20, 1995
    ...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
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 30, 1992
    ...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
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 24, 1994
    ...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
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • July 12, 1994
    ...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.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Davis v. State, No. 84155
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 20, 1995
    ...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
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 30, 1992
    ...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
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 24, 1994
    ...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
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • July 12, 1994
    ...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.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT