¶1We have for review Richardson v. State, 472 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), which expressly and directly conflicts with our decision in State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
¶2The district court below vacated Richardson’s sentence, holding, contrary to our decision in Jackson, that application of sentencing guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing, rather than those in effect at the time of the offense, violated the prohibition against ex post facto laws, article I, sections 9 and 10, United States Constitution. On the authority of Jackson, we quash the district court’s decision and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
¶3It is so ordered.
¶4specially concurring.
¶5I concur because of this Court’s decision in State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985), but I adhere to the views expressed in my dissent therein.
¶6dissenting.
¶7I dissent for the reasons set forth in Justice Ehrlich’s dissent to State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985).