WOODROW WILSON ALLEN, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 a conviction for cocaine possession and a habitual violent felony offender sentence, but certified two constitutional questions regarding whether such sentencing violates due process and double jeopardy protections when the current offense is nonviolent.
A habitual violent felony offender sentence imposed under Florida Statute 775.084 is affirmed, though the court certifies constitutional questions regarding due process and double jeopardy implications.
[1] Habitual violent felony offender sentencing under Florida Statute 775.084 raises constitutional questions regarding substantive due process and double jeopardy when the c…
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 intelligenceWoodrow Wilson Allen was convicted by jury of cocaine possession and adjudged a habitual violent felony offender, resulting in a ten-year sentence.…
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 Prior Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal and cross appeal from a judgment and sentence following jury trial and conviction of possession of cocaine. The trial court adjudged defendant to be a habitual violent felony offender and sentenced him to ten year’s imprisonment. We affirm as to all issues raised. However, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v), and in accord with recent decisions of this court, we certify the following questions to be of great public importance:
(1) WHETHER IMPOSITION OF HABITUAL VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER SENTENCING PURSUANT TO SECTION 775.084, FLORIDA STATUTES, VIOLATES A DEFENDANT’S SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WHEN THE DEFENDANT HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED OF AN ENUMERATED VIOLENT FELONY, BUT HIS PRESENT OFFENSE IS A NONVIOLENT FELONY; AND (2) WHETHER SECTION 775.084, FLORIDA STATUTES, VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY BY INCREASING A DEFENDANT’S PUNISHMENT DUE TO THE NATURE OF A PRIOR OFFENSE.
Reeves v. State, 593 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Becker v. State, 592 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Raulerson v. State, 589 So. 2d 369, 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), jurisdiction accepted, 593 So. 2d 1052 (Fla.1992), review pending, No. 79,051; Tillman v. State, 586 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), review pending, No. 78,715 (Fla.1991); Perkins v. State, 583 So. 2d 1103, 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), jurisdiction accepted, 590 So. 2d 421 (Fla.1991), review pending, No. 78,613.
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, SMITH and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allen v. State, 614 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1993)…OVERTON, Justice. We have for review Allen v. State, 604 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), in which the district court certified the same question we recently answered in the negative in Tillman v. State, 609 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 1992). For the reasons expressed in Tillman, we approve the decision of the district court.…
Authorities Cited
- Isaiah Perkins v. State, 583 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Leshawn Tillman v. State, 586 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Raulerson v. State, 589 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Karee L. Sapp v. State, 592 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Reeves v. State, 593 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Unisys Fin. Corp. v. AMP Servs., Inc., 593 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)