LESHAWN TILLMAN, 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 affirmed the habitual violent felony offender classification and sentence, but certified two questions of great public importance.
The appellant was classified and sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender for selling cocaine, based on a prior conviction for armed robbery. T…
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 Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Leshawn Tillman has appealed his classification and sentence as an habitual violent felony offender pursuant to section 775.-084(l)(b), Florida Statutes. Tillman received this sentence for selling cocaine (a non-violent felony), based on a previous conviction of armed robbery (a violent felony). We affirm, but certify two questions as being of great public importance.
Tillman’s argument on appeal is that section 775.084(l)(b) is unconstitutional. He contends that it: 1) denies equal protection in that not all who are eligible for habitual violent felony offender status are so sentenced, 2) offends the requirements of due process by its failure to require that the current offense be violent, and 3) violates the constitutional protection against double 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 public importance:
1. DOES IT VIOLATE A DEFENDANT’S SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WHEN HE 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?
2. DOES SECTION 775.084(l)(b) VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY BY INCREASING A DEFENDANT’S PUNISHMENT DUE TO THE NATURE OF A PRIOR OFFENSE?
Affirmed.
JOANOS, C.J., and SMITH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Hernandez v. State, 592 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…utional guarantees of due process and protection against double jeopardy have been certified to the Florida Supreme Court, as questions of great public importance, in the context of the habitual violent felony offender statute. See Tillman v. State, 586 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Accordingly, the cause is remanded for correction of the sentencing document in Case No. 90-3010, showing the convicted offense to be burglary of a structure, rather than burglary of a dwelling. In all other respects, the judg…
-
Maeweather v. State, 599 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…bstantial relationship to the objects sought to be obtained” because it does not punish for repetition of violent crimes, but for only one violent crime. Each of these arguments has been decided adversely to appellant's contention. Tillman v. State, 586 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (the habitual violent felony offender statute does not violate equal protection rights, due process rights, or double jeopardy provisions); Perkins v. State, 583 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA), jurisdiction accepted, 590 So. 2d 421 (…
-
Scott v. State, 600 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…OLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY BY INCREASING A DEFENDANT’S PUNISHMENT DUE TO THE NATURE OF A PRIOR OFFENSE? See Hall v. State, 588 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), pet. for rev. pending, no. 79,-237; Tillman v. State, 586 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), pet. for rev. pending, no. 78,715; Perkins v. State, 583 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA), jurisdiction accepted, 590 So. 2d 421 (Fla.1991). AFFIRMED. WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Barber v. State, 564 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Isaiah Perkins v. State, 583 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Ross v. State, 579 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)