MANUEL GONZALEZ AND RALPH DURENY, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE 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.
Appellants Gonzalez and Dureny appealed their convictions and sentences for strong arm robbery. The court affirmed both convictions and sentences, rejecting challenges based on sufficiency of evidence, habitual felony offender statute constitutionality, and alleged judicial vindictiveness in sentencing.
The court affirmed both convictions and sentences. The evidence was sufficient to support Gonzalez's conviction, precluding a judgment of acquittal. Gonzalez's habitual felony sentence was proper as he did not fall within the parameters of State v. Johnson. Dureny's sentence was not vindictive because it fell within the range of recommended sentencing guidelines, making the vindictiveness claim unreviewable.
[1] Evidence is sufficient to convict when it supports a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
[2] A habitual felony offender sentence is affirmed if the defendant does not fall within the parameters of controlling precedent regarding the constitutionality of the habit…
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“after a review of the record, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to convict, thus foreclosing a judgment of acquittal”
Establishes the standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence claims and rejects Gonzalez's argument for judgment of acquittal
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGonzalez and Dureny were convicted of strong arm robbery. Before trial concluded, the trial judge offered Dureny 364 days in jail to plead guilty. Dur…
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 Strong Arm Robbery cases and more on FLexlaw
GERSTEN, Judge.
Appellants, Manuel Gonzalez (Gonzalez), and Ralph Dureny (Dureny), appeal their convictions and sentences for strong arm robbery. We affirm.
Gonzalez contends that the evidence, was insufficient to convict him and that therefore, the trial court should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal. However, after a review of the record, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to convict, thus foreclosing a judgment of acquittal. Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1974).
Gonzalez also contends that his habitual felony sentence should be reversed because the habitual felony offender statute, Section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989), violates the single subject rule of Article III, section 6, of the Florida Constitution. This issue, however, has been determined in State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1993). Gonzalez does not fall within the parameters of the Johnson holding and therefore, his sentence is affirmed.
Dureny claims that the trial court sentenced him out of vindictiveness because he would not accept a plea. Immediately before the conclusion of his trial, the trial judge offered Dureny 364 days in jail if he pleaded guilty. Although he initially accepted the plea, he later withdrew it.1 The last witness then testified about inconsequential matters and the jury ultimately found him guilty.
The trial judge sentenced him to five and a half years in prison, stating:
Mr. Dureny, having had the opportunity to hear all the testimony in this case, I am going to sentence you to five and a half years in state prison.
In Panek v. State, 593 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), this Court stated that a claim of judicial vindictiveness is neither reviewable nor cognizable on appeal where the actual sentence fell within the range of recommended guideline. Therefore, because Dureny was sentenced within the range of the guidelines, we will not disturb his sentence.
Accordingly, because the trial court committed no error, the convictions and sentences of Gonzalez and Dureny are affirmed.
Affirmed.
. The trial judge was aware of Dureny’s score-sheet and prior convictions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1974)
- State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993)
- Panek v. State, 593 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)