MICHAEL BRINSON, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed robbery conviction and sentence under the Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Act, rejecting constitutional and double jeopardy challenges while certifying conflict with Fourth District precedent.
A sentence imposed under both the Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Act and the Habitual Offender Statute does not violate double jeopardy principles.
[1] A sentence imposed under both the Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Act and the Habitual Offender Statute does not violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopar…
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 intelligenceMichael Brinson was convicted of robbery and sentenced under both the Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Act and the Habitual Offender Statute.…
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 Certification Of Conflict cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Michael Brinson appeals his conviction and sentence for robbery. Brinson asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; that section 775.082(8), Florida Statutes (1997), the Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Act, is unconstitutional; and that his sentence under both the Habitual Offender Statute and the Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Act violates the prohibition against double jeopardy. We affirm appellant’s conviction and the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal without further comment. Appellant’s claims as to the constitutionality of the Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Act were considered and rejected by this court in Grant v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). See Jones v. State, 751 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We therefore affirm appellant’s sentence.
We recognize that the Fourth District has ruled contrary to our opinion in Grant and has held that a sentence imposed under both the Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Act and the Habitual Offender Statute violates the principle of double jeopardy. See Melton v. State, 746 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Adams v. State, 750 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Glare v. State, 745 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Thus, we certify conflict to the extent our holding on the double jeopardy issue conflicts with the Fourth District’s decision in these cases.
Affirmed.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., BLUE and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 765 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…. 2d -, 2000 WL 627666 (Fla. 1st DCA May 17, 2000); Smith v. State, 754 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Taylor v. State, 755 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Wright v. State, - So. 2d -, 2000 WL 424053 (Fla. 1st DCA April 20, 2000); Brinson v. State, 751 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Jones v. State, 751 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Newsome v. State, - So. 2d -, 2000 WL 256153 (Fla. 2d DCA March 8, 2000); Alfonso v. State, 761 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Only the Fifth District agrees with Adams. See Dr…
Authorities Cited
- Pollock v. Couffer, 750 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Ames v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Grant v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Glave v. State, 745 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- State v. Hyde, 746 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Melton v. State, 746 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Jones v. State, 751 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)