LARRY ROBINSON, 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 trial court correctly denied Robinson's motion for post-conviction relief.
Robinson pleaded guilty and was convicted, then sentenced as an habitual felony offender. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief alleging ineffe…
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 Statutory Amendment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Larry Robinson has appealed an order of the trial court summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We affirm.
Robinson pled guilty to and was convicted of an unnamed offense, and sentenced as an habitual felony offender on February 5,1991. He did not appeal. Robinson filed the instant motion on January 23, 1992, alleging that his counsel was ineffective in failing to argue that section 775.084, Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 89-280, Laws of Florida, violated the single-subject rule of the Florida Constitution. See Johnson v. State, 589 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The trial court denied the motion, finding that review of Johnson was pending in the Florida Supreme Court and thus the case was not yet final.
The motion was correctly denied. First of all, the Johnson ruling on single-subject constitutionality had not been made at the time Robinson was sentenced. Further, the constitutionality argument raised by Robinson will not be considered if habituali-zation would have occurred under the pre-amendment statute. King v. State, 585 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Robinson’s motion does not allege nor can we tell from its contents that he would not have been habitualized under the pre-amendment statute. Therefore, it states, no grounds for relief on this issue, and was properly denied.
Affirmed.
JOANOS, C.J., and BOOTH and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perez v. State, 606 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…We affirm, on the sole ground that, because Perez’ motion fails to allege the nature of his offense and the date of its commission, we cannot determine that he is entitled to raise the single-subject constitutionality issue. See Robinson v. State, 603 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Johnson v. State, 603 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (the single-subject constitutionality argument will not be considered if the defendant would have been habitualized regardless of the affected amendments). Our affir-mance is w…
-
Howard v. State, 615 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…set forth at section 775.084(l)(a), we find that, under the circumstances of this case, the error was harmless. See State v. Rucker, 613 So. 2d 460 (Fla. February 4, 1993). The issues raised by Howard pro se are without merit. See Robinson v. State, 603 So. 2d 50, 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (the single-subject constitutionality issue will not be considered if the appellant would have been habitualized under the pre-amendment statute); § 775.084(4)(e), [*230] Fla.Stat. (habitual offender sentences are not subject…
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 589 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Bush Wade Holland v. State, 585 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)