Case ID: so2d_513/html/0732-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Isiah BELLINGER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 86-265.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Sept. 29, 1987.
    Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Gitlitz, Keegan & Dittmar and James D. Keegan, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Julie S. Thornton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
    Before HUBBART, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.
   ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Mulvey v. State, 41 So.2d 156 (Fla.1949); Myers v. State, 499 So.2d 895 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). This case presents the same question certified in Condiles v. State, 512 So.2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987):

IS USE OF THE HABITUAL OFFENDER STATUTE TO EXCEED THE STATUTORILY PRESCRIBED MAXIMUM SENTENCE FOR THE OFFENSE PRECLUDED WHERE THE SENTENCE IMPOSED DOES NOT EXCEED THE RECOMMENDED GUIDELINE SENTENCE?

Question certified.