JAMES DOUGLAS VUCINICH, 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.
James Douglas Vucinich appeals his ten-year habitual offender sentence for felony driving with a suspended license, arguing the sentence constitutes impermissible double enhancement and cruel and unusual punishment. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirms the sentence, holding that the felony driving statute specifically permits habitual offender sentencing and that the sentence is proportionate given Vucinich's extensive criminal history.
The court affirms the habitual offender sentence, holding that section 322.34(2) specifically references the habitualization statute as a sentencing option, and therefore the sentence does not constitute illegal double enhancement. The court also holds that the ten-year sentence does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment given Vucinich's extensive criminal history.
[1] A conviction for felony driving with a suspended license may be enhanced by habitual offender sentencing when the underlying statute specifically references habitualizati…
[2] A prior conviction elevated to a felony by statute may still be subject to habitual offender sentencing unless the specific statute prohibits such enhancement.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“In contrast, section 322.34(2) specifically references the habitualization statute as a possible sentencing option. Accordingly, Brown is not controlling.”
Distinguishes the controlling statute from those analyzed in Brown, establishing that double enhancement is not prohibited where the statute expressly permits habitualization.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVucinich was convicted by jury of felony driving with a suspended license under Florida Statutes section 322.34(2). He had an extensive criminal recor…
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 Double Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
PALMER, J.
James Douglas Vucinich appeals his ten year habitual offender sentence imposed on his conviction for felony driving with a suspended license. We affirm.
Vucinich was convicted by a jury of felony driving with a suspended license in violation of section 322.34(2) of the Florida Statutes (1999). Based upon his extensive criminal record, including prior convictions for felony petit theft, possession of controlled substances, grand theft, burglary, false pretense to property, and violation of probation, Vucinich was sentenced as an habitual offender pursuant to section 775.084 of the Florida Statutes (1999).
Vucinich first challenges his sentence, arguing that the trial court’s decision to adjudicate him as a habitual offender constitutes double enhancement which resulted in the imposition of an illegal sentence. To that end he maintains that his conviction for felony driving without a license, which resulted from the enhancement of the misdemeanor charge of driving without a license to a third degree felony due to his prior suspensions, was improperly further enhanced when the trial court declared him to be an habitual offender. To support this argument, Vucinich relies on Brown v. State, 744 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1999). In Brown, the Second District reversed an habitual offender sentence imposed upon a petit theft conviction which had been elevated from a misdemeanor to a felony. The basis of that decision was that the petit theft statute in question had specifically been amended to prohibit the imposition of an habitual offender sentence arising from the violation thereof.1 In contrast, section 322.34(2) specifically references the habitu-alization statute as a possible sentencing option. Accordingly, Brown is not controlling.
Vucinich also relied on Oliveira v. State, 751 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Such reliance is misplaced. First, this court explicitly rejected the rationale of Oliveira in King v. State, 763 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). In addition, the Fourth District recently receded from Oliveira in Spann v. State, 772 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (en banc).
Vucinich also contends that his ten year sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. We disagree. Given Vuci-nich’s long criminal record, he is just the type of person the habitual offender statute contemplates. See Collier v. State, 649 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); See also Lookadoo v. State, 737 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)(Sharp, J., dissenting).
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP, and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . Prior to that amendment the Florida Supreme Court held that habitualization under that statute was legal. Gayman v. State, 616 So. 2d 17 (Fla.1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gayson Mills v. State, 822 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2002)…2d 1227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), but that does not preclude using Gayman as we do here. 763 So. 2d at 547-48. As correctly observed in King, under these circumstances, we conclude that double jeopardy concerns do not apply. Cf. also Vucinich v. State, 776 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (affirming appellant’s ten-year habitual offender sentence, and rejecting his argument that “his conviction for felony driving without a license, which resulted from the enhancement of the misdemeanor charge of driving without a…
-
Megaleto Andrews v. State, 82 So. 3d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…2) (finding “10/20/Life” enhancement statute was not, on its face, cruel and unusual); see also Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521, 526 (Fla.1993) (reiterating the principle that sentence length is a matter of legislative prerogative); Vucinich v. State, 776 So. 2d 995, 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (finding a ten-year sentence for habitual felony offender driving did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment). 2. Intrajurisdictional Comparison After a thorough search, we can find no Florida case law exactly on poin…
Authorities Cited
- Dorcy Gayman v. State, 616 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1993)
- Cedrick E. Spann v. State, 772 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- King v. State, 763 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Ulysses Drake, Jr. v. State, 772 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Wolfson v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 649 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Quinton Collier v. State, 649 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Oliveira v. State, 751 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Parave v. TRI Cnty. Sec., Inc., 737 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Brown v. State, 744 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)