Barge v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Barge v. State

789 So. 2d 972, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 454, 2001 Fla. LEXIS 1374, 2001 WL 746641

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJuly 5, 2001

DocketNo. SC00-1352

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 789 So. 2d 972 (Barge v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barge v. State, 789 So. 2d 972, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 454, 2001 Fla. LEXIS 1374, 2001 WL 746641 (Fla. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

LEWIS, J.

We have for review Barge v. State, 763 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). We have [973]*973jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

Barge challenges his sentences under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (“the Act”), the habitual violent felony offender statute, and the habitual felony offender statute. The imposition of equal, concurrent sentences under the Act, the habitual violent felony offender statute, and the habitual felony offender statute does not violate principles of double jeopardy; it does, however, violate the Act itself. See Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655, 657-59 (Fla.2000). Therefore, we vacate the decision of the district court and remand for reconsideration upon application of our decisions in Grant; State v. Cotton, 769 So.2d 345 (Fla.2000); McKnight v. State, 769 So.2d 1039 (Fla.2000); and Ellis v. State, 762 So.2d 912 (Fla.2000).

It is so ordered.

WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

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

LEWIS, J.

We have for review Barge v. State, 763 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). We have [973]*973jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

Barge challenges his sentences under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (“the Act”), the habitual violent felony offender statute, and the habitual felony offender statute. The imposition of equal, concurrent sentences under the Act, the habitual violent felony offender statute, and the habitual felony offender statute does not violate principles of double jeopardy; it does, however, violate the Act itself. See Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655, 657-59 (Fla.2000). Therefore, we vacate the decision of the district court and remand for reconsideration upon application of our decisions in Grant; State v. Cotton, 769 So.2d 345 (Fla.2000); McKnight v. State, 769 So.2d 1039 (Fla.2000); and Ellis v. State, 762 So.2d 912 (Fla.2000).

It is so ordered.

WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

789 So. 2d 972, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 454, 2001 Fla. LEXIS 1374, 2001 WL 746641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barge-v-state-fla-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack