DAVID TAYLOR, 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 affirmed Taylor's convictions and sentences, holding that no double jeopardy violation occurred because the state's reclassification of his offense status occurred before sentencing, not after.
No double jeopardy violation occurs when the state reclassifies an offender's status prior to sentencing based on the number of predicate felony convictions.
[1] Double jeopardy is not violated when the state reclassifies an offender's felony status prior to sentencing based on the number of predicate convictions, even if the recl…
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 intelligenceTaylor was convicted and at sentencing the state abandoned a simple habitual offender classification upon learning he had only one prior felony convic…
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 Double Jeopardy Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.
We affirm Taylor’s convictions and sentences without prejudice to his filing a mo tion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850. State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1974); Counts v. State, 376 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
Taylor’s reliance upon Banks v. State, 591 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), is misplaced. The court in Banks found the double jeopardy prohibition violated when the state initially failed to provide the trial court with sequential convictions essential at that time for enhancement under section 775.084(1)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988).
The state unsuccessfully sought to persuade the view that on remand the harsher penalty prescribed in the habitual violent offender section could be imposed because that portion of the statute requires only one predicate felony conviction. By contrast, at Taylor’s sentencing the state abandoned a simple habitual offender classification; it did so upon learning that on a prior occasion he had been convicted of only one felony. Because Taylor’s “reclassification” to the status of a violent felony offender under section 775.084(1)(b) occurred prior to the sentence he challenges in this proceeding, he was not twice placed in jeopardy. The sentence is affirmed.
PARKER and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1974)
- Counts v. State, 376 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Gary Banks v. State, 591 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)