WAYNE MANCINI, 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 prior convictions entered on the same day, arising from different criminal episodes, can be counted as separate predicate offenses for habitual offender classification.
Appellant sought post-conviction relief, arguing two prior burglary convictions entered on the same day should be treated as one incident for habitual…
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 Predicate Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant moved for post-conviction relief arguing that he should not have been classified as a habitual offender under section 775.084(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1989) because the two prior qualifying convictions were entered on the same day and should have been counted as a single incident. The two prior convictions were the result of burglaries of two different houses which occurred on the same day, and thus the convictions did not arise out of one criminal episode. This case is controlled by State v. Barnes, 595 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1992), in which the supreme court held that the statute did not require the predicate convictions to be sequential. See also Lee v. State, 685 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Cooper v. State, 625 So. 2d 1326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
Although the legislature amended the habitual offender statute after Barnes to require that prior convictions be sequential, that amendment is prospective only. § 775.084(5), Fla. Stat (1993); Ch. 93-406, § 2, Laws of Florida (effective 6/17/93). Bond v. State, 675 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 684 So. 2d 1350 (Fla.1996).
We have considered the other grounds of appellant’s 3.850 motion and find them to be without merit. Affirmed.
FARMER, KLEIN and PARIENTE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Finelli, 744 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…ER, GROSS, and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. . Joyner v. State, 158 Fla. 806, 30 So. 2d 304 (1947), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in State v. Barnes, 595 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1992), superseded by statute as recognized in Mancini v. State, 693 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).…
-
Brooks v. State, 793 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Mancini v. State, 693 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., and DANAHY, PAUL W., (Senior) Judge, concur.…
-
Davis v. State, 785 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Mancini v. State, 693 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). DELL, STONE, and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Barnes, 595 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1992)
- Bond v. State, 675 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Manning v. State, 625 So. 2d 1326 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- LEE v. State, 685 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)