Case Name: Joseph Leon STOWERS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-11-10
Citations: 534 So. 2d 1143
Docket Number: No. 70451
Parties: Joseph Leon STOWERS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Judges: EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, SHAW, BARKETT and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 534
Pages: 1143–1144

Head Matter:
Joseph Leon STOWERS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 70451.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Nov. 10, 1988.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 9, 1989.
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender and Carl S. McGinnes, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Norma J. Mungenast, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

Opinion:
KOGAN, Justice.
We have for review Stowers v. State, 504 So.2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), in which the district court certified the same question framed in VanTassell v. State, 498 So.2d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986):
DOES A TRIAL COURT'S STATEMENT, MADE AT THE TIME OF DEPARTURE FROM THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES, THAT IT WOULD DEPART FOR ANY ONE OF THE REASONS GIVEN, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER BOTH VALID AND INVALID REASONS ARE FOUND ON REVIEW, SATISFY THE STANDARD SET FORTH IN ALBRITTON V. STATE?
We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
We answered the certified question in the negative in Griffis v. State, 509 So.2d 1104 (Fla.1987) and VanTassell v. State, 512 So.2d 181 (Fla.1987). Accordingly, we disapprove the decision below as to this issue and remand to the district court for reconsideration in light of our decisions in Griffis and VanTassell.
It is so ordered.
EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, SHAW, BARKETT and GRIMES, JJ., concur.