THOMAS GILMORE, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
OVERTON, Justice.
We have for review Gilmore v. State, 597 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), in which the district court addressed the same question we recently answered in State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1993).1 In accordance with our decision in Johnson, we quash, in part, the decision of the district court in the instant case. Nevertheless, we approve Gilmore’s sentence. The record in this case reflects that none of the amendments to section 775.084, Florida Statutes, contained in chapter 89-280 affected Gilmore’s sentence. Consequently, we approve the result of the district court's decision because Gilmore’s sentence is not altered by our decision in Johnson. We decline to address the other issue raised by Gilmore.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. . We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3)-(4), Fla. Const.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kirby v. State, 625 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…felony offender provision (§ 775.084(l)(a)) they drafted the statute to apply where “defendant has previously been convicted of two or more felonies in this state....” The decision in Pride v. State, 603 So. 2d 24, 26 (Fla. 1st DCA1992), approved, 616 So. 2d 6 (Fla.1993), applies to the regular habitual offender classification. Under Pride, the adjudication as a regular habitual offender depends on the felonies having been committed in Florida. However, this defendant was not convicted under that section…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993)
- Gilmore v. State, 597 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)