Case Name: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. James Leo DODD, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-01-09
Citations: 594 So. 2d 263
Docket Number: No. 77249
Parties: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. James Leo DODD, Respondent.
Judges: SHAW, C.J., and BARKETT, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 594
Pages: 263–264

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. James Leo DODD, Respondent.
No. 77249.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jan. 9, 1992.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Belle B. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for petitioner.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender and Daniel J. Schafer, Asst. Public Defender, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Dodd v. State, 570 So.2d 1013, 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), which certified the following question of great public importance:
IN A CASE INVOLVING THE IMPOSITION OF AN UPWARD DEPARTURE SENTENCE IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR A NEW SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE, DOES THE SHORT TIME INTERVAL BETWEEN COMMISSION OF THE CRIME AND RELEASE FROM PRISON PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR THE DEPARTURE, EVEN THOUGH THE TRIAL JUDGE FAILS TO MAKE AN EXPLICIT FINDING THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS ENGAGED IN A PERSISTENT PATTERN OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY?
We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Based on our opinion in Barfield v. State, 594 So.2d 259 (Fla.1992), we answer the certified question in the negative and approve the result reached below. It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and BARKETT, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
McDONALD, J., dissents with an opinion, in which OVERTON, J., concurs.