JOE RAZZ, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 appellate court reversed an enhanced sentence for a defendant convicted of drug offenses. The court found that the prior felony convictions used for enhancement were not sequential, which is required by Florida's habitual offender statute.
Yes, the habitual offender statute requires sequential convictions. Since the appellant's prior robbery convictions were on the same day, they do not satisfy the sequential requirement for habitual offender sentencing.
[1] A habitual offender sentence enhancement requires sequential convictions for prior felonies, not convictions entered on the same day.
[2] The 1989 amendment to the habitual offender statute did not clearly and unambiguously demonstrate legislative intent to alter the requirement of sequential convictions.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“since the judgment of conviction introduced by the state clearly shows that appellant was convicted of the two counts of robbery on the same day we must reverse appellant’s enhanced sentence and remand the case for resentencing.”
Establishes the factual basis for the reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant pleaded nolo contendere to two counts of selling crack cocaine. The state sought enhanced sentencing under the habitual offender statute…
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 Sequential Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
On December 8, 1989, appellant pled nolo contendere to two counts of sale and delivery of crack cocaine. The state thereafter gave notice that it was seeking enhanced sentencing under the habitual offender statute, section 775.084(1), Florida Statutes (1989), on the grounds that appellant had been convicted of two prior felonies as required by section 775.084(l)(a)l. At the sentencing hearing held on January 31, 1990, the state introduced into evidence a certified copy of a judgment showing appellant was convicted of two prior counts of robbery with a firearm. However, since the judgment of conviction introduced by the state clearly shows that appellant was convicted of the two counts of robbery on the same day we must reverse appellant’s enhanced sentence and remand the case for resentencing. Just recently in Barnes v. State, 576 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (en banc), we reaffirmed, for purposes of the 1988 amended statute, the long-standing view that habitualization must be supported by sequential convictions. Moreover, as noted by Judge Zehmer in his specially concurring opinion, nothing in the language of section 775.084(l)(a)l., as amended in 1989 “clearly and unambiguously demonstrates any legislative intent to change these established legal principles governing the construction and application of the habitual offender statute.” Nevertheless, we certify the following question as one of great public importance:
WHETHER SECTION 775.084(l)(a)l, FLORIDA STATUTES (1989), WHICH DEFINES HABITUAL FELONY OFFENDERS AS THOSE WHO HAVE “PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY COMBINATION OF TWO OR MORE FELONIES IN THIS STATE OR OTHER QUALIFIED OFFENSES,” REQUIRES THAT EACH OF THE FELONIES BE COMMITTED AFTER CONVICTION FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PREVIOUS OFFENSE?
Because we have reversed appellant's sentence, we need not reach his second point questioning whether the 1989 habitual offender statute is constitutional.
REVERSED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.
SMITH, J., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fuller v. State, 578 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…775.084. Consequently, because all of appellant’s previous convictions occurred on the same day, appellant does not qualify as a habitual offender and his enhanced sentences therefor must be reversed. Nevertheless, in accordance with Razz v. State, 576 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), we certify the following question to the supreme court as one of great public importance: WHETHER SECTION 775.084(l)(a)l, FLORIDA STATUTES (1989), WHICH DEFINES HABITUAL FELONY OFFENDERS AS THOSE WHO HAVE “PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVI…
-
Martin v. State, 583 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…1989), is not supported by sequential convictions, appellant’s sentence is reversed and the case remanded for resentencing. Fuller v. State, 578 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), petition for review filed, No. 77,907 (Fla. May 10,1991); Razz v. State, 576 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), petition for review filed, No. 77,761 (Fla. Apr. 16, 1991). Accord Barnes v. State, 576 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), petition for review filed, No. 77,751 (Fla. Apr. 17, 1991). In accordance with the above case law, we certif…
-
State v. Razz, 595 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 1992)…OVERTON, Justice. We quash the decision of the district court in Razz v. State, 576 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), on the authority of State v. Barnes, 595 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1992),1 and remand for further proceedings consistent with our decision in Barnes. It is so ordered. SHAW, C.J., and McDONALD, BARKETT, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ.,…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Barnes v. State, 576 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)