State v. Mott
State v. Mott
Concurring Opinion
concurring specially.
I concur because this case is controlled by the decision of this Court in State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 1985). I agree, however, with Justice Ehrlich’s dissent in that case which concludes that ex post facto protection should apply to the sentencing guidelines.
EHRLICH, J., concurs.
Opinion of the Court
We granted review of Mott v. State, 469 So.2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), because of direct and express conflict with State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 1985). Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
We quash the decision below and remand for proceedings consistent with Jackson.
It is so ordered.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons set forth in Justice Ehrlich’s dissent to State v. Jackson, 478 So.3d 1054, 1057 (Fla. 1985).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.