ANTONIO L. JONES, 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.
Antonio Jones appeals his conviction for felony criminal mischief based on a guilty plea, arguing that his prior 1993 misdemeanor conviction should not be used to enhance the current charge because the enhancement statute was enacted after the prior conviction. The Fourth District affirms, distinguishing the First District's decision in Huss v. State and holding that the enhancement provision did not alter the elements of the underlying offense.
The prior 1993 misdemeanor conviction could properly be used to enhance the current charge because the amended statute did not add any element to the underlying offense; it merely provided for permissive enhancement of post-amendment offenses based on pre-amendment convictions, which is constitutional.
[1] A prior conviction for misdemeanor criminal mischief can be used to enhance a subsequent criminal mischief offense to a felony under section 806.13(l)(b)4, Florida Statut…
[2] Statutory amendments that add an enhancement provision based on prior convictions, without altering the elements of the underlying offense, do not violate ex post facto p…
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“Unlike Huss, the amended statute here did not add an element to the qualifying offense.”
Establishes the critical distinction between this case and Huss—the enhancement provision did not alter the elements of the underlying crime.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJones was charged with misdemeanor criminal mischief under sections 806.13(l)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes. The charge was enhanced to a third degree …
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 Felony Criminal Mischief cases and more on FLexlaw
DAMOORGIAN, J.
Appellant, Antonio Jones, appeals his conviction and sentence for felony criminal mischief which was based on a guilty plea. We affirm and write only to distinguish Huss v. State, 771 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
By way of background, Appellant was charged by information with misdemeanor criminal mischief under sections 806.13(l)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (2006). The information went on to enhance the misdemeanor to a third degree felony under section 806.13(l)(b)4, Florida Statutes (2006), because Appellant was previously convicted of misdemeanor criminal mischief in 1993. Appellant entered a guilty plea and was sentenced as a habitual felony offender. Appellant relies on Huss v. State, 771 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), to contend that his 1993 conviction for misdemeanor criminal mischief is precluded from use as an enhancement under section 806.13(l)(b)4 because subsection (b)4 was not added to the statute until 1998. In Huss, the First District ruled that convictions for driving while license suspended (DWLS), prior to a statutory amendment requiring the element of knowledge, could not be used to enhance a post-amendment DWLS offense to a felony. Id. at 591-93. Unlike Huss, the amended statute here did not add an element to the qualifying offense.
Here, the elements of the underlying charge were not changed by the amendment to the statute. Subsection (b)4 provides only: “If the person has one or more previous convictions for violating this subsection, the offense under subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2. for which the person is charged shall be reclassified as a felony of the third degree .... ” § 806.13(l)(b)4, Fla. Stat. (1999). Therefore, under section 806.13(l)(b)4, the instant post-amendment offense was permissively enhanced by the pre-amendment convictions. See Plain v. State, 720 So. 2d 585, 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(the Prison Release Re-Offender Act, which increases the penalty for an offense committed after the Act, based on a conviction occurring prior to the Act, is not an unconstitutional ex post facto law). Accordingly, Appellant was properly and unambiguously charged with a felony under section 806.13(l)(b)4.
Affirmed.
SHAHOOD, C.J., and HAZOURI, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Plain v. State, 720 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Huss v. State, 771 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)