JOHNNIE L. LYONS, JR.
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A habitual felony offender sentence does not violate double jeopardy or Apprendi and does not require jury determination because it is based solely on prior convictions.
[1] A habitual felony offender sentence does not constitute a new substantive offense but rather prescribes an enhanced sentence for subsequent offenses and therefore does no…
[2] The habitual felony offender statute, being based solely on prior convictions, does not require jury determination of the HFO designation under Apprendi v. …
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“an HFO sentence does not create a new substantive offense, but merely prescribes a longer sentence for the subsequent offenses which triggers the operation of the HFO statute”
Explaining why HFO sentences do not violate double jeopardy, citing Tillman v. State
Johnnie L. Lyons, Jr. was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and sentenced as a habitual felony offender.…
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 Apprendi V. New Jersey cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Johnnie L. Lyons, Jr., appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. We affirm the conviction without further comment. As for Appellant’s sentence, he concedes that his arguments have previously been rejected. See Tillman v. State, 609 So. 2d 1295, 1298 (Fla. 1992) (rejecting the argument that a habitual felony offender (“HFO”) sentence violates the constitutional protection against double jeopardy and noting that an HFO sentence does not create a new substantive offense, but merely prescribes a longer sentence for the subsequent offenses which triggers the operation of the HFO statute); see also Dinkens v. State, 976 So. 2d 660, 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (explaining that the argument that the findings in support of an HFO designation must be made by a jury has been repeatedly rejected by Florida courts and stating that “the habitual felony offender statute is based solely on prior convictions and therefore does not require a jury determination” pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)). As such, we affirm Appellant’s sentence as well. AFFIRMED. LEWIS, ROWE, and JAY, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- Michael André Funchess v. State, 609 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 1992)
- Enoch Eugene Dinkens v. State, 976 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)