FRANCISCO REBON, JR., 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 appellant argued that a Florida statute imposing harsher penalties for escaped felons than escaped misdemeanants violated equal protection. The appellate court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, finding the distinction reasonable.
No, the distinction made by the statute between escaped felons and escaped misdemeanants is not unreasonable or arbitrary, and therefore does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
“We do not regard the distinction made by the attacked statute unreasonable and arbitrary.”
This quote establishes the court's primary reasoning for upholding the statute.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrancisco Rebon, Jr. pleaded guilty to escape and was sentenced. He later filed a motion for post-conviction relief, arguing the statute under which h…
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 Equal Protection Of The Laws cases and more on FLexlaw
Francisco Rebon, Jr., pleaded guilty to an escape charge, was adjudged guilty thereof, and was sentenced to a one-year prison term to begin at the expiration of the sentence he was then serving. He subsequently filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, urging that Fla.Stat., Sec. 944.40, F.S.A., under which he was convicted and sentenced, is unconstitutional. His ground for such contention, now urged on appeal from the order denying his motion, is that such statute denies him equal protection of the law by providing for harsher punishment for an escaped felon than for an escaped misdemeanant.
We do not regard the distinction made by the attacked statute unreasonable and arbitrary. Accordingly, we affirm without needing to consider whether the defect alleged is fundamental such as would not be deemed waived by appellant’s plea of guilty. Thomas v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 201 So.2d 834, 835; Hines v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 195 So.2d 605, 606; Childs v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 190 So.2d 605, 606.
Affirmed.
LILES, C. J., and PIERCE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Thomas v. State, 326 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1975)…the statement of the exception upon which respondent relies and henceforth will review challenged argument of prosecutors only when an objection is timely made.” (emphasis supplied) Cf. Smith v. State, 243 So. 2d 602 (Fla.App.1971); Hall v. State, 203 So. 2d 202 (Fla.App.1967). As to those remarks to which appellant failed to object, this Court will not consider appellant’s objections. The two remarks which were objected to by defense counsel, to-wit: “The entire department suffers from this man’s actions…
-
Kruglak v. State, 300 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…Except for fundamental error, in absence of a timely objection interposed at trial, defendant may not raise objections to remarks of the prosecutor for the first time on appeal. State v. Jones, Fla. 1967, 204 So. 2d 515; Hall v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 202; Smith v. State, Fla.App. 1971, 243 So. 2d 602. Appellant secondly argues that the trial court erred in allowing witnesses to testify for the state, whose identities were not supplied to the appellant, even though he timely had demanded their ident…
-
Chance v. State, 251 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…PER CURIAM. The briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. See Hall v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 202, and Morris v. State, 1930, 100 Fla. 850, 130 So. 582. Affirmed. WALDEN, OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Thomas v. State, 201 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Childs v. State, 190 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Hines v. State, 195 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)