Supreme Court of Florida, 1986

State v. Hill

Supreme Court of Florida · Decided August 21, 1986 · Adkins, Barkett, Boyd, Ehrlich, McDonald, Overton, Shaw

492 So. 2d 1072; 11 Fla. L. Weekly 437; 1986 Fla. LEXIS 2533 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Ridgeway v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
Nichols v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)
Morgan v. State (Fla. 1986)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

EHRLICH, Justice.

We have for review Hill v. State, 468 So.2d 406 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) which conflicts with decisions of other district courts on the issue of whether a trial judge is required to set forth in writing the reasons for departure from the presumptive guidelines sentence.* We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Relying on its decision in Boynton v. State, 473 So.2d 703 (Fla. 4th DCA), approved, 478 So.2d 351 (Fla. 1985), the district court below vacated Hill’s sentence and remanded for resen-tencing in accordance with the guidelines or for written reasons for departure. We recently approved the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s position on this issue. State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054, 1055-56 (Fla. 1985); State v. Boynton, 478 So.2d 351 (Fla. 1985). Accordingly, the decision of the district court is approved.

It is so ordered.

McDonald, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, SHAW and'BARKETT, JJ., concur.

Hill raises several collateral issues which we choose not to address.

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