STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
DAVID MARK CANTRELL, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The imposition of consecutive sentences for violations of two separate statutes during a single criminal transaction is permissible under the Florida Constitution.
Cantrell appealed the denial of post-conviction relief, arguing separate sentences for burglary and possession of burglary tools were improper. The di…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Constitution Article I, Section 9 cases and more on FLexlaw
McDONALD, Justice.
Cantrell successfully appealed a trial court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief wherein he contended that the imposition of separate sentences for the offenses of burglary and possession of burglary tools was improper. When it reversed the trial court’s denial the First District Court of Appeal certified the following question as being of great public importance:
The Supreme Court of the United States having ruled in Albernaz v. United States [450 U.S. 333, 101 S.Ct. 1137, 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981) ], that the imposition of consecutive sentences for violation in one criminal transaction of two separate statutes is not precluded by the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, does the Supreme Court of Florida desire to adopt the same construction or a more restrictive construction to Article I, Section 9, of the Florida Constitution?
Cantrell v. State, 405 So. 2d 986, 990 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla.Const. In our recent decision of Borges v. State, 415 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1982), we held that it is permissible to impose consecutive sentences for violations committed during one criminal transaction of two or more separate statutes. To answer the instant question, we apply and construe article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution in the same manner that the United States Supreme Court applied the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution in Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 101 S.Ct. 1137, 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981), as it relates to consecutive sentences for violation in one criminal transaction of two separate statutes. The decision of the district court in Cantrell is quashed.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, Acting C. J., and BOYD, OVERTON and EHRLICH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…needs to involve a judgment or sentence imposed in violation of the Constitution. A third group of cases that is used to discuss fundamental error involves illegal sentences. See Cantrell v. State, 405 So. 2d 986, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), quashed, 417 So. 2d 260 (Fla.1982). It is well established that an illegal sentence can be corrected “at any time.” This authority comes from Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Admittedly, the concept of an “illegal sentence” is similar to the concept of “fundame…
-
State v. Gibson, 452 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1984)…its it and the legislature clearly intends it, we hold separate prosecution and punishment are proper, and, as far as the double jeopardy argument is concerned, we would so hold even if the Blockburger test were not satisfied. See State v. Cantrell, 417 So. 2d 260 (Fla.1982). The decision of the district court of appeal, reversing the respondents’ convictions for use or display of a firearm during the commission of a felony, is quashed and the case is remanded with instructions to affirm the convictions of t…
-
Baker v. State, 425 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…e Court has held that Article I, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution is to be construed and applied in the same manner as the United States Supreme Court applied the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution in Albernaz. State v. Cantrell, 417 So. 2d 260 (Fla.1982). In the present case, the two crimes with which Baker was charged were (1) premeditated murder, and (2) use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. The elements of first-degree murder relevant to the present case, as defined in secti…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1981)
- Borges v. State, 415 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1982)
- Cantrell v. State, 405 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)