BOBBY ROSS, 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 the statute allowing sentence enhancement for violent felony offenders, even when the current offense is nonviolent, does not violate substantive due process.
[1] A prior judicial rejection of constitutional challenges to a statute by an appellate court is binding precedent on subsequent challenges to the same statute.
[2] A statute enhancing a defendant's sentence for a nonviolent felony based on prior violent felony convictions does not violate substantive due process when the enhancement…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 convicted of escape and appealed, challenging the constitutionality of the statute used to enhance his sentence. The statute allows for …
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 Sentence Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Appellant appeals a judgment and sentence entered upon his conviction of escape. We affirm.
We find the points raised by appellant to be without merit. With one exception, his assertions that section 775.084, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), is unconstitutional have previously been rejected by this court in numerous cases, including Pittman v. State, 570 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Henderson v. State, 569 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Barber v. State, 564 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); and Holley v. State, 577 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). See also King v. State, 557 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). However, one of his constitutional challenges to that statute has not previously been resolved and therefore merits discussion.
Appellant contends that substantive due process rights are violated when a defendant is classified as a violent felony offender pursuant to section 775.084, and thereby subjected to an extended term of imprisonment, if he has been convicted of an enumerated violent felony within the previous five years even though his present offense is a nonviolent felony. He asserts that to enhance a defendant’s sentence for a nonviolent felony is not a reasonable means which bears a rational relationship to the legitimate goal of providing society added protection against violent individuals. As in Henderson, appellant has failed to present convincing argument that the statute bears no rational relationship in this respect to its purported purpose. In our view, just as the state is justified in punishing a recidivist more severely than it punishes a first offender1, its even more severe treatment of a recidivist who has exhibited a propensity toward violence is also reasonable. Therefore, we reject appellant’s argument that section 775.084, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), does not serve a legitimate state interest in this respect by utilizing a means reasonably related to achieve the intended purpose.
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, J., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur. . Barber; King.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ross v. State, 601 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1992)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Ross v. State, 579 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), which expressly declared a statute valid. We have jurisdiction. Art. Y, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. Bobby Ross was a prisoner taking part in a work-release program at Dinsmore Community Correctional Center in Duval County. In the mor…
-
Leshawn Tillman v. State, 586 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…e jeopardy by increasing punishment due to the nature of a prior offense. This court has ruled adversely to Tillman on each of these issues. See Barber v. State, 564 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied 576 So. 2d 284 (Fla.1990), Ross v. State, 579 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and Perkins v. State, 583 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), respectively. We therefore affirm. However, pursuant to Rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, we certify the following questions to be of great…
-
Leftwich v. State, 589 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…habitual offender statute is constitutional. Appellant’s claim that the habitual offender statute bears no rational relationship to its purpose, since his present offense is a nonviolent felony, has [*386] been rejected by this court. Ross v. State, 579 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). His claim that the statute places him in double jeopardy by punishing him again for an earlier conviction has similarly been rejected. Barber v. State, 564 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. denied, 576 So. 2d 284 (1990); Lov…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Caracciolo v. State, 557 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Barber v. State, 564 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Pittman v. State, 570 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Henderson v. State, 569 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Holley v. State, 577 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)