
    STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Julian TAFT, Respondent.
    No. 67165.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    May 8, 1986.
    Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Noel A. Pelel-la, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
    Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Gary Caldwell, Asst. Public Defender, 15th Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, for respondent.
   ADKINS, Justice.

In Taft v. State, 468 So.2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), the court vacated Taft’s sentence because he was sentenced pursuant to the guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing as opposed to the guidelines in effect at the time the crime was committed. In State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985), we held that the trial court may sentence a defendant pursuant to the guidelines in effect at the time of sentenc: ing.

Accordingly, the decision of the district court is quashed.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, C.J., and OVERTON, MCDONALD and SHAW, JJ., concur.

EHRLICH, J., concurs specially with an opinion, in which SHAW, J., concurs.

BARKETT, J., concurs specially with an opinion.

EHRLICH, Justice,

concurring specially.

I concur because of this Court’s decision in State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 1985), but I adhere to the views expressed in my dissent therein.

SHAW, J., concurs.

BARKETT, Justice,

concurring specially.

I concur because this case is controlled by the decision of this Court in State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985). I agree, however, with Justice Ehrlich’s dissent in that case which concludes that ex post facto protection should apply to the sentencing guidelines.  