Ackers v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided May 20, 1993

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1993-05-20

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1994

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“In order to properly sentence a defendant found to be an habitual felony offender to probation or community control, the trial judge would first have to make a decision under subsection 775.084(4)(c) that a sentence as an habitual felony offender was not necessary. Having made that decision, a sentence pursuant to sentencing guidelines would then be required. If the guidelines recommended sentence called for a sentence other than probation or community control, in order to impose such a sentence, the trial judge would be required to enter an order finding proper reasons for a downward departure. Only then could the state appeal such a sentence based upon an improper departure.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Ackers v. State

Relies on 616 So. 2d 31 - The Florida Bar v. Neckman · Ackers v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1993-05-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1We review Ackers v. State, 601 So.2d 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (on rehearing), on the ground of express and direct conflict. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

¶2We recently held that it is permissible to impose probation upon a defendant found to be an habitual felony offender. McKnight v. State, 616 So.2d 31 (Fla.1993). We therefore quash that part of the district court’s decision that ruled to the contrary. Our decision does not affect the remaining components of the district court’s opinion. We remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶3It is so ordered.

BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, grimes, kogan and HARDING, JJ., concur.