ERIC RYAN GOODMAN, 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 court held that a defendant cannot be classified as a habitual felony offender if the two prior convictions occurred simultaneously. The court also certified a question regarding the interpretation of the habitual offender statute.
[1] A statute defining habitual felony offenders is not violative of constitutional provisions protecting against ex post facto laws or due process.
[2] A defendant cannot be classified as an habitual felony offender if the prior convictions relied upon for such classification were entered at the same time.
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 intelligenceAppellant was sentenced as a habitual offender based on two prior convictions entered at the same time. He appealed, arguing the habitual offender sta…
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 Fla. Stat. § 775.084 Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to his plea of nolo contendere, the appellant was sentenced as an habitual offender pursuant to Section 775.084(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp). On appeal he raises two issues: (1) Section 775.084 is violative of Article I, Sections 9 and 16 of the Florida Constitution, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; and (2) appellant should not have been classified as an habitual felony offender because the two prior convictions had been entered at the same time.
As to the first issue, we affirm on the authority of Bouie v. State, 570 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), and Atkinson v. State, 570 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), citing to Smith v. State, 567 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Arnold v. State, 566 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Roberts v. State, 559 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), dismissed 564 So. 2d 488 (Fla.1990); King v. State, 557 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), rev. denied, 564 So. 2d 1086 (Fla.1990). Cf. Barber v. State, 564 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
However, as to the second issue, we must reverse based upon this court’s recent en banc decision on the identical issue in Barnes v. State, 576 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Accordingly, the adjudication of the appellant as an habitual offender and the sentence thereon are reversed. Remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
ERVIN, NIMMONS and ZEHMER, JJ„ concur. ON MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION
PER CURIAM.
The appellee’s motion for certification is granted. As this court did in Barnes v. State, 576 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), we certify the following as a question 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?
ERVIN, NIMMONS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Newell v. Moore, 826 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…spondent argues that because the motion was untimely under rule 1.530(b), it did not suspend rendition of the amended final order and thus did not extend the time for filing the petition for writ of certiorari. Luttrell v. Florida Parole Commission, 578 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). This court’s certiorari jurisdiction must be invoked within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.100(c)(1); see also Ashley v. Moore, 742 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). The motion to dismiss…
-
Terence C. Atkins v. State, 43 So. 3d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. See Luttrell v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 578 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). DAVIS, BENTON, and CLARK, JJ„ concur.…
-
State v. Goodman, 595 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 1992)…[*20] OVERTON, Judge. We quash the decision of the district court in Goodman v. State, 578 So. 2d 11 (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 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Caracciolo v. State, 557 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Barber v. State, 564 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Barnes v. State, 576 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Arnold v. State, 566 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Flowers v. State, 559 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Roberts v. State, 559 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Smith v. State, 567 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Atkinson v. State, 570 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Cunningham v. State, 570 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Bouie v. State, 570 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)