JOHNNIE F. HOWARD, 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 there was insufficient evidence to sustain convictions for the third and fourth counts of aggravated battery as offenses separate from the first and second counts.
Johnnie F. Howard was convicted of four counts of aggravated battery arising from a single criminal episode attacking his two brothers. He appealed hi…
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 Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Johnnie F. Howard appeals his convictions for four counts of aggravated battery and the four consecutive sentences imposed upon him as a prison releasee reof-fender. We find merit in only one of the issues raised by Mr. Howard.
The charges against Mr. Howard all arose out of one criminal episode in which he attacked his two brothers. Viewing the evidence presented in its entirety, we conclude there was insufficient evidence to sustain Mr. Howard’s convictions for the third and fourth counts of aggravated battery as offenses separate and distinct from the first and second counts. As a result, we reverse the convictions and sentences on counts 8 and 4. Because the sentences imposed upon Mr. Howard for counts 1 and 2 were imposed upon him as a prison releasee reoffender, and thus were not based upon a guidelines calculation, this decision does not affect those sentences.1 Reversed and remanded as to counts 3 and 4 only.
PATTERSON, C.J., and ALTENBERND and CASANUEVA, JJ„ Concur. . Mr. Howard also argues that the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons. See ch. 97-239, Laws of Fla., codified in part in § 775.082(8), Fla. Stat. (1997). The supreme court, however, has held that the Act does not violate the separation of powers, cruel or unusual punishment, due process, or equal protection clauses, and that the Act is not over-broad. See State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla. June 15, 2000), revised by 25 Fla. L. Weekly S536 (Fla. June 28, 2000). This court has held that the Act does not violate the single-subject rule, is not an ex post facto law, and that a sentence as both a prison releasee reoffender and a habitual felony offender does not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. See Grant v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), review granted, 761 So. 2d 329 (Fla.2000).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Howard v. State, 17 So. 3d 774 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…ated battery after the State presented evidence that Howard attacked his two brothers, Allan Howard and Rex Pearson, in their mother’s home. On direct appeal, this court reversed two of the four counts, one against each brother. See Howard v. State, 774 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Mandate issued on January 2, 2001, and Howard placed his first postcon-viction motion in the hands of prison officials on December 30, 2002. Howard subsequently filed an amended motion and a supplement. I. Summarily Denied Claim…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2000)
- Ames v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Grant v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)