State v. Thompson

Supreme Court of Florida
State v. Thompson, 720 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 1998)
23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 572; 1998 Fla. LEXIS 2102; 1998 WL 750902
Anstead, Harding, Kogan, Overton, Pariente, Shaw, Wells

State v. Thompson

Concurring in Part

PARIENTE, Justice,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur in part and dissent in part for the reasons stated in my opinion in Mays v. State, 717 So.2d 515, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S387, S387-89 (Fla. 1998) (Pariente, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

KOGAN and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

Opinion of the Court

SHAW, Justice.

We have for review Thompson v. State, 707 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), wherein the district court certified conflict with Mays v. State, 693 So.2d 52 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

We have since approved the district court decision in Mays. See Mays v. State, 717 So.2d 515, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S387 (Fla. 1998) (holding that under section 921.001(5), Florida Statutes (1995), if the “true” recommended guidelines sentence exceeds the statutory maximum, the guidelines sentence must be imposed). Accordingly, we quash Thompson.1

It is so ordered.

*244-246HARDING, C.J., and OVERTON and WELLS, JJ., concur. PARIENTE, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which KOGAN and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

. We decline to address the other issue raised by Thompson since it was not the basis for our review.

Reference

Full Case Name
STATE of Florida v. James THOMPSON
Status
Published