State v. Thompson
State v. Thompson
Concurring in Part
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
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.
It is so ordered.
. 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