Case Name: Randall S. PIERCE, Petitioner, v. STATE of FLORIDA, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-01-09
Citations: 591 So. 2d 928
Docket Number: No. 78467
Parties: Randall S. PIERCE, Petitioner, v. STATE of FLORIDA, Respondent.
Judges: SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, barkett, grimes, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 591
Pages: 928–928

Head Matter:
Randall S. PIERCE, Petitioner, v. STATE of FLORIDA, Respondent.
No. 78467.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jan. 9, 1992.
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., Dayto-na Beach, for respondent.

Opinion:
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.