NEAL MCARTHUR, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 Supreme Court reversed a judgment, finding that the prior conviction used to enhance the sentence did not meet the statutory requirements for a second offender status under the relevant act.
No, the prior conviction for "unlawfully selling liquor" does not qualify as a predicate offense for enhanced sentencing under the statute, as it does not specify that the sale was for beverage purposes.
“it seems to the Court that there is error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that.the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby reversed on authority of Smith v. State, decided at this term of court.”
The court's decision to reverse the lower court's judgment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted as a second offender under Chapter 9266, Acts of 1923. The prior conviction was for "unlawfully selling liquor." The statu…
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.
Per Curiam.
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that.the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby re versed on authority of Smith v. State, decided at this term of court.
Ellis, C. J.,.and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur. Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Strum, J.
The record shows that our former conviction was for “unlawfully selling liquor.” To warrant conviction as a second offender under Chapter 9266, Acts of 1923, the former conviction must have been either for the offense of manufacturing; selling; possessing for sale or of transporting for sale any intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes. State v. Mayo, 88 Fla. 96; 101 So. R. 228.