Pierce v. State of Florida

Full title: RANDALL S. PIERCE, PETITIONER, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Court: Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Jan 9, 1992

591 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 1992)

Opinion

No. 78467.

January 9, 1992.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Seminole County.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Barbara L. Condon and James R. Wulchak, Asst. Public Defenders, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, for petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and David S. Morgan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Pierce v. State, 583 So.2d 1095, 1095 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal certified the following question of great public importance:

DO FLORIDA'S UNIFORM SENTENCING GUIDELINES REQUIRE THAT LEGAL CONSTRAINT POINTS BE ASSESSED FOR EACH OFFENSE COMMITTED WHILE UNDER LEGAL CONSTRAINT?

We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution. In Flowers v. State, 586 So.2d 1058 (Fla. 1991), we answered this same question in the negative. Accordingly, we quash the decision below and remand this case for reconsideration consistent with our opinion in Flowers.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, BARKETT, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.