Atkinson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Atkinson v. State

570 So. 2d 1147, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9447, 1990 WL 205429

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 14, 1990·No. No. 90-389·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm on both issues raised by appellant. As to the constitutional attack upon Section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), we affirm on the authority of Smith v. State, 567 So.2d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Arnold v. State, 566 So.2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Roberts v. State, 559 So.2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA), dismissed, 564 So.2d 488 (Fla.1990); King v. State, 557 So.2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 564 So.2d 1086 (Fla.1990). Cf. Barber v. State, 564 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

We also reject appellant’s arguments on the second issue relating to alleged procedural irregularities in connection with the imposition of the habitual offender sentence.

AFFIRMED.

SMITH, NIMMONS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm on both issues raised by appellant. As to the constitutional attack upon Section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), we affirm on the authority of Smith v. State, 567 So.2d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Arnold v. State, 566 So.2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Roberts v. State, 559 So.2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA), dismissed, 564 So.2d 488 (Fla.1990); King v. State, 557 So.2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 564 So.2d 1086 (Fla.1990). Cf. Barber v. State, 564 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

We also reject appellant’s arguments on the second issue relating to alleged procedural irregularities in connection with the imposition of the habitual offender sentence.

AFFIRMED.

SMITH, NIMMONS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Atkinson v. State, 570 So. 2d 1147, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9447, 1990 WL 205429 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

570 So. 2d 1147 (Atkinson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related