History
  • No items yet
midpage
State v. Head
485 So. 2d 1285
Fla.
1986
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM.

We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, to answer the following certified question of great public importance:

WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT FINDS THAT A SENTENCING COURT RELIED UPON A REASON OR REASONS THAT ARE IMPERMISSIBLE UNDER FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.701 IN MAKING ITS DECISION TO DEPART FROM THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES, SHOULD THE APPELLATE COURT EXAMINE THE OTHER REASONS GIVEN BY THE SENTENCING COURT TO DETERMINE IF THOSE REASONS JUSTIFY A DEPARTURE FROM THE GUIDELINES OR SHOULD THE CASE BE REMANDED FOR A RESENTENC-ING?

Head v. State, 473 So.2d 18, 19 (Fla.3d DCA 1985). We answered the identical question in State v. Young, 476 So.2d 161 (Fla.1985). Accord Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985). The decision below, consistent with holdings of this Court, is approved.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, MCDONALD, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ.,' concur.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Head
Court Name: Supreme Court of Florida
Date Published: Apr 10, 1986
Citation: 485 So. 2d 1285
Docket Number: No. 67493
Court Abbreviation: Fla.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.