Case ID: so2d_487/html/1071-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. EHRLICH, Justice, BARKETT, Justice,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Jorge SUEIRO, Respondent.
    No. 67468.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    May 8, 1986.
    Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Richard L. Polin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for petitioner.
    James D. Keegan, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, Gitlitz, Keegan and'Dittmar, Miami, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

We review Sueiro v. State, 471 So.2d 1317 (Fla.3d DCA 1985), because of direct and express conflict with State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985). We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.

The district court below held, inter alia, that sentencing guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing, but not in effect at the time the offense was committed, could not be applied. We quash the portion of the decision so holding on the authority of Jackson and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

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

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

BARKETT, J., concurs specially with an opinion.

EHRLICH, Justice,

concurring specially.

I concur because of this Court’s decision in State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985), but I adhere to the views expressed in my dissent therein.

SHAW, J., concurs.

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.