MITCHELL L. MCNEIL, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed conviction for dealing in stolen property and habitual offender sentencing, but remanded to amend the habitual offender order to reflect reliance on a 1975 conviction rather than same-day forgery convictions.
The trial court properly denied the motion for judgment of acquittal and properly sentenced appellant as a habitual offender under section 775.084(1)(a), though the sentencing order must be amended to reflect reliance on a 1975 conviction to comply with Barnes v. State.
[1] Sequential convictions are required under Barnes v. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMitchell McNeil was convicted of dealing in stolen property and sentenced as a habitual offender based on prior convictions. The sentencing order init…
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.
We affirm appellant’s judgment of conviction and sentence for dealing in stolen property. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. Neither did the trial court err in sentencing appellant as an habitual offender. However, we note that the “Order Determining Habitual Felony Offender” relies, for the requisite prior convictions, on convictions for two counts of forgery for which appellant was sentenced on the same day. We would have found this to be a violation of the holding in Barnes v. State, 576 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), requiring sequential convictions, had it not been for the fact that the transcript of the hearing held on this matter reveals that the trial court also relied on a 1975 conviction to establish the requisite two felony convictions under section 775.084(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1989). Accordingly, there is no violation of Barnes, but we remand the order for it to be amended to reflect the 1975 conviction.
Finally, appellant argues that section 775.084, Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 89-280, Laws of Florida, is unconstitutional as violative of the one subject rule. However, because appellant could have been habitualized under the pre-amendment statute as well, we decline to consider this argument. See King v. State, 585 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Wright v. State, 579 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
ERVIN and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
van Bryant v. State, 602 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…d as a habitual violent felony offender under the pre-amended version of the statute and therefore cannot rely on the unconstitutionality of the amendment to void his sentence. See Hale v. State, 589 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); McNeil v. State, 588 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); King v. State, 585 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Wright v. State, 579 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s sentence as a habitual offender and remand this matter to the trial court for resenten…
-
Tims v. State, 592 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…ender under the 1988 statutory provisions. Because appellant would qualify as an habitual violent felony offender under the 1988 version of the statute, appellant may not challenge the constitutionality of Chapter 89-280. [*742] See McNeil v. State, 588 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); King v. State, 585 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Wright v. State, 579 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Accordingly, we affirm. SHIVERS, ZEHMER and MINER, JJ., concur. . Art. Ill, § 6, Fla.Const. (1968), provides in part:…
-
Hale v. State, 589 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…rida Constitution, see Art. Ill, § 6, Fla. Const. (1968), because appellant could have been sentenced as an habitual offender under the pre-amended version of the statute. See Jennings v. State, 413 So. 2d 24 (Fla.1982); Mitchell L. McNeil v. State, 588 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); King v. State, 585 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Wright v. State, 579 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). With respect to the second issue, it is well settled that the written sentencing order musí; conform to the trial court’s…
Previewing 3 of 10 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)
- Wright v. State, 579 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Bush Wade Holland v. State, 585 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)