Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

AVERY HIGHSMITH, PETITIONER, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT.

BARKETT, Justice.

We have for review Highsmith v. State, 508 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), affirming petitioner's convictions and sentences and certifying the same question set out in VanTassell v. State, 498 So.2d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), quashed, 512 So.2d 181 (Fla. 1987), as a question of great public importance. The certified question is:

Does a trial court's statement, made at the time of departure from the sentencing guidelines, that it would depart for any one of the reasons given, regardless of whether both valid and invalid reasons are found on review, satisfy the standard set forth in Albritton v. State [ 476 So.2d 150, (Fla. 1985)]?

512 So.2d at 182.

We answered the question in the negative in Griffis v. State, 509 So.2d 1104 (Fla. 1987). Accordingly, we quash the decision below and remand to the district court for review in light of our decision in Griffis.

It is so ordered.

McDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HIGHSMITH v. STATE
(Apr 25, 1988)