¶1*425 Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robert Burke, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Charles M. Fahlbusch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
¶3Before JORGENSON, LEVY and GODERICH, JJ.
¶4PER CURIAM.
¶5The defendant, Rafael Fonseca, appeals his convictions and sentences for second-degree murder with a firearm and possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense. We reverse in part, affirm in part and remand.
¶6The defendant contends, and the State properly concedes, that the trial court erred in entering convictions for both second-degree murder with a firearm and unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense. See Carawan v. State,515 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1987). Accordingly, the defendant's conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense is reversed.
¶7Additionally, the trial court erred in departing from the sentencing guidelines without providing written reasons. See Pope v. State,561 So.2d 554 (Fla. 1990). Accordingly, this cause is remanded for imposition of a sentence within the sentencing guidelines.
¶8As in State v. Smith (Fla. 3d DCA case no. 89-3012, opinion filed June 5, 1990) [15 F.L.W. D1520], and State v. Whipple (Fla. 3d DCA case no. 89-2606, opinion filed July 24, 1990) [15 F.L.W. D 1916], we recognize that the defendant was sentenced prior to the issuance of the Pope decision. Since we are applying Pope retroactively, we certify the following question to the Supreme Court of Florida as a question of great public importance:
SHOULD POPE V. STATE BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO SENTENCES IMPOSED PRIOR TO APRIL 26, 1990?
¶9The defendant's remaining points raised on appeal lack merit.
¶10Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.