Pacheco v. State, 84-1189
| Citation | 485 So.2d 1379,11 Fla. L. Weekly 829 |
| Decision Date | 08 April 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1189,84-1189 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 829 Louis PACHECO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Richard L. Polin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and JORGENSON, JJ.
The only substantial question presented on this appeal 1 challenges the application of the sentencing guidelines, pursuant to which the defendant was given a life sentence without parole, for a crime which occurred on January 19, 1984, before the guidelines were enacted by the legislature. Pacheco contends that the promulgation of the guidelines by the Supreme Court alone was an invalid assertion of purely legislative power. See State v. Caride, 473 So.2d 1362, 1363 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (Schwartz, C.J., specially concurring). We reject this contention and affirm on the authority of the holding in State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985) that the sentencing guidelines are procedural in nature. It follows from this determination that the Supreme Court possessed the authority to adopt the guidelines as rules of practice and procedure pursuant to Article V, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution. But see § 921.001(4)(b), Fla.Stat. (1983).
We certify to the Supreme Court of Florida that this decision passes upon the following question of great public importance:
Whether the sentencing guidelines are procedural in nature so as to authorize their adoption by the Supreme Court without approval by the legislature.
Affirmed.
While I dissented in Van Horn v. State, 485 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), on the basis of my conviction that a retroactive application of the guidelines offends the United States Constitution, the present issue, concerning the proper characterization of the guidelines for purposes of applying the separation of powers doctrine embodied in the Florida Constitution, is one solely of Florida law. On these issues, as I indicated in Van Horn, we are conclusively bound by the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida. I therefore concur in the decision to affirm.
1 The other issues present no error and require no discussion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v. State
...Theirs not to reason whyAlfred Lord Tennyson, The Charge of the Light Brigade, st. 2 (1854). See Pacheco v. State, 485 So.2d 1379 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (Schwartz, C.J., specially concurring); Van Horn v. State, 485 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (Schwartz, C.J., ...
-
Van Horn v. State, 84-2274
...ousts the legislature of all but the power to veto guideline revisions might be on any particular guideline issue, see Pacheco v. State, 485 So.2d 1379 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), or, indeed, on the continued viability of the guidelines concept as a whole--particularly in view of the fact that the ......
-
Florida Power & Light Co. v. Jennings
... ... See, e.g., Walters v. State Road Department, 239 So.2d 878, 882 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970) (a jury verdict based on such factors is in ... ...
-
Pacheco v. Dugger
...of state law in his direct appeal. His argument was rejected based upon State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985). See Pacheco v. State, 485 So.2d 1379 (Fla.App.1986). We note that the Supreme Court of Florida has now disavowed its opinion in Jackson in light of Miller v. Florida, --- U.S......