JAMES REEVES, III, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court upheld the use of Florida's habitual violent felony offender statute to impose enhanced sentences on defendants convicted of non-violent offenses when they had prior convictions for violent crimes. The Court held the statute constitutional and answered two certified questions of great public importance regarding its scope and constitutionality.
The court answered both certified questions: (1) section 775.084 does authorize habitual felon sentencing for a defendant currently sentenced for a non-violent offense if they have prior violent convictions, and (2) the statute does not violate constitutional protections against double jeopardy, equal protection, due process, or ex post facto application.
[1] Section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989), authorizes habitual felon sentencing for a defendant previously convicted of a violent offense enumerated in the statute, even w…
[2] The habitual offender statute, section 775.084(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), does not violate the constitutional protections against double jeopardy.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Does section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989), authorize habitual felon sentencing for a criminal defendant who has previously been convicted of a violent offense enumerated in the statute, but who is currently being sentenced for a non-violent offense?”
First certified question of great public importance establishing the core legal issue before the Court
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Reeves III was convicted and sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989). Reeves had previous…
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 Habitual Violent Felony Offender cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
We have for review Reeves v. State, 593 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), in which the district court affirmed Reeves’ sentence as a habitual violent felony offender and certified the following questions as being of great public importance:
1. Does section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989), authorize habitual felon sentencing for a criminal defendant who has previously been convicted of a violent offense enumerated in the statute, but who is currently being sentenced for a non-violent offense?
2. If section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989), authorizes habitual felon sentencing for a criminal defendant who is currently being sentenced for a non-violent offense, does the statute violate the constitutional principles of equal protection, due process, double jeopardy, or ex post facto?
Id. at 232.1 We answer the first question in the affirmative, the second question in the negative, and approve the decision of the district court.
In Tillman v. State, 609 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 1992), we recently held that section 775.-084(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), does not violate the constitutional protections against double jeopardy. In Ross v. State, 601 So. 2d 1190 (Fla.1992), we held that section 775.084(l)(b) does not violate equal protection or due process. This court has also rejected ex post facto challenges to the habitual offender statute in Reynolds v. Cochran, 138 So. 2d 500 (Fla.1962); Washington v. Mayo, 91 So. 2d 621 (Fla.1956); and Cross v. State, 96 Fla. 768, 119 So. 380 (1928).
It is so ordered. McDonald, SHAW, GRIMES and HARDING, JJ., concur. KOGAN, J., dissents with an opinion, in which BARKETT, C.J., concurs.
. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
KOGAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent on the basis of my dissenting opinion in Tillman v. State, 609 So. 2d 1295 (Fla.1992). The petitioner has only been convicted of one violent crime and therefore cannot be a habitual violent felony offender. BARKETT, C.J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Heath v. State, 648 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 1994)…felony offender statute. Thus, this claim is without merit. Likewise, we find no merit to Heath’s claim that the habitual felony offender statute violates the constitutional guarantees of due process of law and equal protection. See Reeves v. State, 612 So. 2d 560 (Fla.1992) (holding that habitual felon sentencing under statute does not violate constitutional principles of equal protection, due process, double jeopardy, or ex post facto). Accordingly, we affirm both Heath’s conviction for first-degree murder…
-
Marblee Seabrook v. State, 629 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1993)…ERS, AS SET FORTH IN THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION? Seabrook, 608 So. 2d at 560. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. This Court has previously held that section 775.084 does not violate due process or equal protection. Reeves v. State, 612 So. 2d 560 (Fla.1992); Ross v. State, 601 So. 2d 1190 (Fla.1992). In our opinion in McKnight v. State, 616 So. 2d 31 (Fla.1993), we adopted the rationale of King v. State, 597 So. 2d 309 (Fla.2d DCA), review denied, 602 So. 2d 942 (Fla.1992), and held that a t…
-
Kirk v. State, 663 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…section 775.08401. Before the amendment, criminal defendants often argued that the habitual offender statute had been applied in violation of their right to equal protection of the law. Seabrook v. State, 629 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1993); Reeves v. State, 612 So. 2d 560 (Fla.1992); Ross v. State, 601 So. 2d 1190 (Fla.1992).2 Many of these challenges included a specific claim of racial discrimination in the use of the statute. Miller v. State, 651 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. den., 659 So. 2d 1087 (Fla.1995); McKi…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cross v. State, 96 Fla. 768 (Fla. 1928)
- Michael André Funchess v. State, 609 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 1992)
- Ross v. State, 601 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1992)
- Ishmael Washington v. Mayo, 91 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 1956)
- Reynolds v. Cochran, 138 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1962)
- 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)