Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2000

Mandri v. State

Mandri v. State
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided July 5, 2000 · Gersten, Levy, Shevin
767 So. 2d 523; 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8285; 2000 WL 873188 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Mandri v. State

070rehearing

*524 ON MOTION FOR REHEARING/CERTIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

We deny defendant’s motion for rehearing. We grant defendant’s motion to certify the following question of great public importance:

WHERE A TRIAL COURT FAILS TO FILE WRITTEN REASONS IN SUPPORT OF A GUIDELINES DEPARTURE SENTENCE BUT, THEREAFTER, IN RESPONSE TO A FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.800(B) MOTION FILED BY DEFENDANT, DOES FILE WRITTEN REASONS JUSTIFYING THE DEPARTURE, IS DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A REVERSAL AND A REMAND FOR A GUIDELINES SENTENCE, UNDER MADDOX v. STATE, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla. 2000)?

Question certified.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla. 2000); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.