Barnhart v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barnhart v. State

578 So. 2d 507, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3788, 1991 WL 65348

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 29, 1991

DocketNo. 89-3105

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 578 So. 2d 507 (Barnhart v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barnhart v. State, 578 So. 2d 507, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3788, 1991 WL 65348 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinions

SHIVERS, Chief Judge.

This appeal is from the trial court’s classification of Barnhart as a habitual offender. Of the four issues Barnhart raises, we find that one has merit.

Barnhart entered a plea of nolo conten-dere to escape, attempted burglary, three counts of forgery and three counts of uttering a forgery. The offenses were committed on December 7, 1988. The trial court classified and sentenced Barnhart as a habitual offender based on four prior felony convictions which arose from separate events and were entered on April 18, 1988. Because all four prior felony convictions were entered on the same day, the trial court erred in finding Barnhart to be a habitual offender. Barnes v. State, 576 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (en banc). As in Barnes, we certify the following question to be one of great public importance:

WHETHER SECTION 775.084(l)(a)(l), FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1988), WHICH DEFINES HABITUAL FELONY OFFENDERS AS THOSE WHO HAVE “PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED OF TWO OR MORE FELONIES,” REQUIRES THAT EACH OF THE FELONIES BE COMMITTED AFTER CONVICTION FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PREVIOUS OFFENSE?

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

SMITH, J., concurs. NIMMONS, J., specially concurs, with opinion.

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

SHIVERS, Chief Judge.

This appeal is from the trial court’s classification of Barnhart as a habitual offender. Of the four issues Barnhart raises, we find that one has merit.

Barnhart entered a plea of nolo conten-dere to escape, attempted burglary, three counts of forgery and three counts of uttering a forgery. The offenses were committed on December 7, 1988. The trial court classified and sentenced Barnhart as a habitual offender based on four prior felony convictions which arose from separate events and were entered on April 18, 1988. Because all four prior felony convictions were entered on the same day, the trial court erred in finding Barnhart to be a habitual offender. Barnes v. State, 576 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (en banc). As in Barnes, we certify the following question to be one of great public importance:

WHETHER SECTION 775.084(l)(a)(l), FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1988), WHICH DEFINES HABITUAL FELONY OFFENDERS AS THOSE WHO HAVE “PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED OF TWO OR MORE FELONIES,” REQUIRES THAT EACH OF THE FELONIES BE COMMITTED AFTER CONVICTION FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PREVIOUS OFFENSE?

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

SMITH, J., concurs. NIMMONS, J., specially concurs, with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

578 So. 2d 507, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3788, 1991 WL 65348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnhart-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack