Supreme Court of Florida, 1999

State v. O'Neal

Supreme Court of Florida · Decided January 14, 1999 · Anstead, Harding, Kogan, Overton, Pariente, Shaw, Wells

724 So. 2d 1187; 24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 41; 1999 Fla. LEXIS 3; 1999 WL 11777 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Concurring in Part

PARIENTE, J.,

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, 516-19 (Fla. 1998) (Pariente, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

ANSTEAD, J., and KOGAN, Senior Justice, concur.

Opinion of the Court

SHAW, J.

We have for review O’Neal v. State, 707 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), wherein the district court certified conflict with Mays v. *1188State, 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 (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 O’Neal.1

It is so ordered.

HARDING, C.J., WELLS, J., and OVERTON, Senior Justice, concur. PARIENTE, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which ANSTEAD, J., and KOGAN, Senior Justice, concur.

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

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