No. 69420 | Fla. | Feb 26, 1987
We review King v. State, 494 So. 2d 291" court="Fla. Dist. Ct. App." date_filed="1986-09-23" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/br-fries--associates-inc-v-dublin-co-7552017?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7552017">494 So.2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), in which the district court upheld departure from the presumptive guideline sentence based on King’s habitual offender status, under section 775.-084, Florida Statutes (1985), and certified the following question as being of great public importance:
IS THE DETERMINATION OF A DEFENDANT AS A HABITUAL FELONY OFFENDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 775.084 A SUFFICIENT REASON FOR DEPARTURE FROM THE RECOMMENDED RANGE OF THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES?
Id. at 291. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
In our recent decision Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863" court="Fla." date_filed="1986-10-30" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/whitehead-v-state-1739273?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1739273">498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986), we held that “section 775.084 cannot operate as an alternative to guidelines sentencing.... Nor can the habitual offender statute remain viable as a reason for departure....” Slip op at 6.
Accordingly, on the authority of Whitehead, we answer the certified question in the negative and quash the decision below. Because the trial court used the habitual
It is so ordered.