Case ID: so2d_488/html/0535-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. BARKETT, Justice, SHAW, Justice,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Theodore J. MOTT, Respondent.
    No. 67278.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    May 22, 1986.
    Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for petitioner.
    James B. Gibson, Public Defender and Nancye R. Crouch, Asst. Public Defender, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

We granted review of Mott v. State, 469 So.2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), because of direct and express conflict with State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985). Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

We quash the decision below and remand for proceedings consistent with Jackson.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

BARKETT, J., concurs specially with an opinion, in which EHRLICH, J., concurs.

SHAW, J., dissents with an opinion.

BARKETT, Justice,

concurring specially.

I concur because this case is controlled by the decision of this Court in State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985). I agree, however, with Justice Ehrlich’s dissent in that case which concludes that ex post facto protection should apply to the sentencing guidelines.

EHRLICH, J., concurs.

SHAW, Justice,

dissenting.

I dissent for the reasons set forth in Justice Ehrlich’s dissent to State v. Jackson, 478 So.3d 1054, 1057 (Fla.1985).