GEORGE GOULD, 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 conviction for aggravated battery and sentence as habitual offender and prison releasee reoffender, rejecting challenges to the verdict form and constitutionality of the prison releasee reoffender statute.
The verdict form used complies with State v. Hargrove requirements, and the prison releasee reoffender statute is constitutional.
[1] Prison releasee reoffender statute does not violate constitutional requirements including ex post facto, equal protection, due process, or separation of powers principles…
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 intelligenceGeorge Gould was convicted of aggravated battery under section 784.045, Florida Statutes, and sentenced as both a habitual offender and prison release…
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 Prison Releasee Reoffender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
George Gould was convicted of aggravated battery-reclassified pursuant to section 784.045, Florida Statutes (2001), and was sentenced to state prison as a habitual offender and prison releasee reoffender. His appeal of his judgment and sentence attacks, first the verdict form used by the jury, and next the constitutionality of the prison releasee reoffender statute, section 775.082(9)(d), Florida Statutes (2001). We affirm.
With regard to the verdict form used, while we continue to stress that separate jury findings for enhancements and reclas-sifications are by far the clearest means to convey the jury’s intention, we are unable to say that the form used in the present case violates the requirements of State v. Hargrove, 694 So. 2d 729 (Fla.1997). See also Bass v. State, 739 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Mr. Gould’s constitutional attack on section 775.082(9)(d) is without merit in view of the supreme court’s decision in State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.2000). See also Rollinson v. State, 778 So. 2d 971 (Fla.2001) (rejecting constitutional challenges to prison releasee reof-fender act); Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000) (rejecting ex post facto challenge to the act, and holding that the act violates neither the single subject rule for legislation nor principals of equal protection); McKnight v. State, 769 So. 2d 1039 (Fla.2000) (rejecting McKnight’s due process challenge to prison releasee reoffen-der act); Ellis v. State, 762 So. 2d 912 (Fla.2000) (prison releasee reoffender act does not violate separation of powers).
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA, C.J., PALMER and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gould v. State, 99 So. 3d 612 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)….800(a) without comment, and write only to address whether Gould should be barred from further pro se filings. Gould was tried and convicted of aggravated battery and sentenced as a habitual offender and prison releasee reoffender. Gould v. State, 860 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Since his judgment and sentence became final, Gould has appealed the denial of two postconviction motions filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and six motions filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Proc…
-
Nova v. State, 874 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…r, Mr. Nova attacks his sentence as a prison releasee reoffender on constitutional grounds. He acknowledges that we have previously held that section 775.082(9)(d), Florida Statutes (2003), is [*1266] not constitutionally infirm. See Gould v. State, 860 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); cf., State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.2000). He asks that we reconsider our position. We decline to do so. AFFIRMED. SHARP, W., and THOMPSON, JJ„ concur.…
-
Gould v. Jones, 210 So. 3d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…, 426 So. 2d 12 (Fla.1982); State v. Broom, 523 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Farrell v. State, 62 So. 3d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Branch v. State, 990 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Thier v. State, 967 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Gould v. State, 860 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). LaROSE, SLEET, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2000)
- Ellis v. State, 762 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2000)
- McKNIGHT v. State, 769 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Hargrove, 694 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1997)
- Leila A. Hyman and Stuart L. Hyman v. Sawgrass Lakes Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 739 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Bass v. State, 739 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Rollinson v. State, 778 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2001)