Case Name: Pedro FERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-02-13
Citations: 592 So. 2d 1090
Docket Number: No. 76525
Parties: Pedro FERNANDEZ, 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: 592
Pages: 1090–1090

Head Matter:
Pedro FERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 76525.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Feb. 13, 1992.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, Asst. Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bar-tow, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Joseph R. Bryant, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We originally accepted jurisdiction to review Fernandez v. State, 564 So.2d 272 (Fla.2d DCA 1990), upon the assumption that it conflicted with Ree v. State, 565 So.2d 1329 (Fla.1990), modified, State v. Lyles, 576 So.2d 706 (Fla.1991), and Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 838 (Fla.1989). We have now determined that no conflict exists and that the opinion below is consistent with our decisions in State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1989), and Jones v. State, 559 So.2d 204 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 276, 112 L.Ed.2d 232 (1990). Because the defendant is going to be resentenced upon a violation of probation, we call the trial judge's attention to Williams v. State, 581 So.2d 144 (Fla.1991), and Williams v. State, 594 So.2d 273 (Fla.1992), as well as Lambert, all of which provide guidance for sentencing under such circumstances. We dismiss the petition for review.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J. and OVERTON, McDonald, barkett, grimes, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.