CHARLES R. CARTER, 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.
On remand from the Florida Supreme Court, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed Carter's habitual felony offender sentence, rejecting his arguments that he lacked notice of enhanced sentencing, that the habitual offender statute violated the single-subject rule, and that the statute was unconstitutional as inequitable, irrational, and vague.
The court affirmed Carter's sentence on all issues raised, finding that Carter received adequate notice and had ample opportunity to contest the predicate convictions, that the single-subject issue would not be considered as Carter would have been habitualized under the pre-amendment statute, and that remaining constitutional arguments have been previously rejected.
[1] A defendant has received sufficient notice of the state's intent to seek habitual felony offender sentencing when the state announces its intention and presents predicate…
[2] A court will not consider a single-subject rule challenge to a statutory amendment when the appellant would have been subject to habitualization under the pre-amendment s…
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“Based on Carter's knowledge, well in advance of the sentencing proceeding, of the state's intent to seek enhanced sentencing, and the postponement of sentencing for a week after the state announced its alternative intention and presented the predicate convictions, we find that Carter had ample opportunity to contest those convictions, but did not do so.”
Establishes that adequate notice was provided and Carter had opportunity to contest predicate convictions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarter was sentenced as a habitual felony offender based on predicate convictions. The state announced its intent to seek habitual felony offender sen…
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
PER CURIAM.
On appeal to this court, Carter argued that he should not have been sentenced as an habitual felony offender, because the predicate convictions had been entered at the same time. We reversed and certified the issue to the Supreme Court. Carter v. State, 588 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). In State v. Carter, 595 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1992), the Supreme Court quashed our decision, and remanded to this court for further proceedings consistent with State v. Barnes, 595 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1992).
Along with his argument based on the absence of sequential convictions, Carter also argued for reversal based on a lack of notice of the state’s intent to seek habitual felony offender sentencing; the unconstitutionality of section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989), as amended by Chapter 89-280, Laws of Florida, as violative of the single-subject rule; and the unconstitutionality of that section as “inequitable, irrational and vague.” These latter issues were not addressed in our previous opinion, but do not require reversal.
First, it is undisputed that Carter received notice of the state’s intent to seek habitual violent felony offender sentencing. At the sentencing proceeding, the state announced an intention to seek habitual felony offender sentencing only, and introduced the predicate convictions; sentencing was thereafter postponed for a week. Based on Carter’s knowledge, well in advance of the sentencing proceeding, of the state’s intent to seek enhanced sentencing, and the postponement of sentencing for a week after the state announced its alternative intention and presented the predicate convictions, we find that Carter had ample opportunity to contest those convictions, but did not do so. This argument is therefore without merit.
With regard to Carter’s “single subject” argument, this court has held that we will not consider the issue when an appellant would have been habitualized under the pre-amendment statute. King v. State, 585 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). None of the amendments to section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989) effected by Chapter 89-280, Laws of Florida, affect Carter’s habit-ualization in this case. Therefore, under King, we decline to address this issue. As to Carter’s remaining constitutional arguments, they have been rejected on numerous occasions. See, e.g., Wagner v. State, 578 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
We therefore affirm on all issues raised.
JOANOS, C.J., and SMITH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Carter, 595 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1992)…hority of State v. Barnes, 595 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1992), and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with our decision in Barnes. It is so ordered. SHAW, C.J., and McDONALD, BARKETT, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. On remand, 598 So. 2d 301.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Barnes, 595 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1992)
- Bush Wade Holland v. State, 585 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Mary Hope Jennings (formerly known as Hope Jennings Allen) v. Harlan G. Allen, 578 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Wagner v. State, 578 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Carter v. State, 588 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Kroll v. State, 588 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- State v. Carter, 595 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1992)