PAUL BALKCOM, 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 Balkcom's convictions for burglary, battery on a law enforcement officer, and resisting an officer with violence, rejecting his constitutional challenges to the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act and his double jeopardy claims, while certifying a separation of powers question to the Florida Supreme Court.
The Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act does not violate the separation of powers clause or single subject requirement, and dual convictions for battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting an officer with violence do not violate double jeopardy principles.
[1] Dual convictions for battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting an officer with violence do not constitute double jeopardy where the offenses have distinct elemen…
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 intelligencePaul Balkcom was convicted by jury of burglary of a dwelling, battery on a law enforcement officer, and resisting an officer with violence, and was se…
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 Single Subject Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Paul Balkcom was convicted by a jury of burglary of a dwelling, battery on a law enforcement officer, and resisting an officer with violence. He was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment due to his designation as a prison releasee reoffender. He argues that the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act, section 775.082, Florida Statutes (1997) (“Act”), is an unconstitutional violation of the Florida Constitution’s separation of powers clause and the single subject requirement. He further argues that his convictions for battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting an officer with violence violate double jeopardy prohibitions. This court has concluded that the Act does not violate the separation of powers clause or the single subject requirement. See Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA), review granted, 740 So. 2d 529 (Fla.1999); Turner v. State, 745 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). This court and the Florida Supreme Court have determined that dual convictions of battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting an officer with violence do not violate double jeopardy principles. See State v. Henriquez, 485 So. 2d 414 (Fla.1986); Larkins v. State, 476 So. 2d 1883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). We therefore affirm appellant’s convictions but, as in Woods, we certify the following question as one of great public importance:
DOES THE PRISON RELEASEE REOFFENDER PUNISHMENT ACT, CODIFIED AS SECTION 775.082(8), FLORIDA STATUTES (1997), VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS CLAUSE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION?
AFFIRMED.
JOANOS, MINER and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Balkcom v. State, 789 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 2000)…LEWIS, J. We have for review Balkcom v. State, 747 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The petitioner challenges his sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (the “Act”) on several grounds, many of which have been previously addressed by opinions o…
Authorities Cited
- Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Mundy v. State, 745 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- State v. Henriquez, 485 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1986)