Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

466 So. 2d 1086

466 So.2d 1086

10 Fla.L.Weekly 849

Wade v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 22, 1985

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1985-01-22

Relies on 462 So. 2d 548 - Burch v. State · 458 So. 2d 13 - Carney v. State · 456 So. 2d 1305 - Brooks v. State

Decided 1985-01-22

PER CURIAM.

¶1AFFIRMED.

BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., and TILLMAN PEARSON (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

¶2ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

¶3Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing is denied. However, we hereby certify as a matter of great public importance the same question certified in Young v. State, 455 *1087So.2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Carney v. State, 458 So.2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Brooks v. State, 456 So.2d 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); and Burch v. State, 462 So.2d 548, (Fla. 1st DCA 1985):

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 DEPARTURE FROM THE GUIDELINES OR SHOULD THE CASE BE REMANDED FOR A RESENTENC-ING?
BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., and TILLMAN PEARSON (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
/466/so2d/1086 · .json · Public domain