MARK JOSEPH OLIVEIRA, 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 Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal denies the state's motion to stay mandate pending potential discretionary review by the Florida Supreme Court. The court finds that the state has failed to demonstrate either a likelihood that the Supreme Court will accept jurisdiction or a likelihood of success on the merits.
The motion to stay mandate is denied because the state has failed to satisfy the first two critical factors: it has not shown a likelihood that the Supreme Court will accept jurisdiction or that the state will ultimately succeed on the merits.
[1] A motion to stay mandate pending discretionary review by the supreme court should only be granted when essential, considering factors such as the likelihood of jurisdicti…
[2] A statute that increases penalties for enumerated crimes committed against law enforcement officers is an enhancement statute, not one creating a separate substantive off…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The advisory committee was of the view that the district courts should permit such stays only when essential. Factors to be considered are the likelihood that jurisdiction will be accepted by the supreme court, the likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, the likelihood of harm if no stay is granted, and the remediable quality of any such harm.”
The standard for granting a stay of mandate pending discretionary review under rule 9.120
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe state filed a notice invoking the Supreme Court's discretionary jurisdiction under rule 9.120 to review the Fourth District's decision in Oliveira…
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 Enhancement Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
On Motion to Stay Mandate
PER CURIAM.
The state has filed a notice under rule 9.120 invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the supreme court to review our decision in this case. Oliveira v. State, 751 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). We now have a motion to stay mandate.
The Committee Notes to rule 9.120 have the following to say about motions to stay mandate pending consideration of whether to accept jurisdiction:
“The advisory committee was of the view that the district courts should permit such stays only when essential. Factors to be considered are the likelihood that jurisdiction will be accepted by the supreme court, the likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, the likelihood of harm if no stay is granted, and the remediable quality of any such harm.”
It seems to us that the state’s motion fails on the first two factors, the likelihood that the supreme court will accept jurisdiction and of ultimate success on the merits.
To do so the court would have to find a conflict between our decision and that of another appellate court. The state cites Evans v. State, 625 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), to show a conflict. Evans held, among other things, that:
“Although the appellant contends that section 784.07(2)(e) merely enhances the penalty for aggravated assault, the statute actually creates a separate substantive offense consisting of the elements of aggravated assault plus the added elements that the victim was a law enforcement officer engaged in the lawful performance of his duties and that the defendant knew the victim was a law enforcement officer. The substantive offense is therefore only enhanced once under the habitual offender statute, and no double jeopardy violation occurs.”
625 So. 2d at 916.
In the later decision of Merritt v. State, 712 So. 2d 384 (Fla.1998), however, the supreme court disagreed with that conclusion and held that:
“Section 784.07 ... is an enhancement statute rather than a statute creating and defining any criminal offense. The plain language of the statute indicates that the legislature enacted section 784.07 in order to increase the penalties for the enumerated crimes of assault, aggravated assault, battery, and aggra vated battery for offenders who commit these crimes upon law enforcement officers.”
712 So. 2d at 385.
Consequently we conclude that the supreme court is unlikely to find conflict with Evans because it has been effectively disapproved in Merritt. The state has not shown a likelihood that the court will accept jurisdiction or of ultimate success on the merits. Therefore we deny the stay.
GUNTHER, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Miyasato, 805 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…ihood of harm if the stay is not granted, and (4) the likelihood that the harm would be irreparable in the absence of the stay. The Fourth District recently applied these factors in a published order denying a stay of the mandate. Oliveira v. State, 765 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). We also conclude that because we could consider similar factors to withdraw our mandate, we should also consider these factors in deciding whether to stay our unissued mandate in [*826] this criminal case.2 In this case, the li…
Authorities Cited
- Merritt v. State, 712 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1998)
- Evans v. State, 625 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Oliveira v. State, 751 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)