Brinson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brinson v. State

751 So. 2d 1256, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2703, 2000 WL 275237

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 15, 2000

DocketNo. 2D98-4294

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 751 So. 2d 1256 (Brinson 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

Brinson v. State, 751 So. 2d 1256, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2703, 2000 WL 275237 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael Brinson appeals his conviction and sentence for robbery. Brinson asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; that section 775.082(8), Florida Statutes (1997), the Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Act, is unconstitutional; and that his sentence under both the Habitual Offender Statute and the Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Act violates the prohibition against double jeopardy. We affirm appellant’s conviction and the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal without further comment. Appellant’s claims as to the constitutionality of the Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Act were considered and rejected by this court in Grant v. State, 745 So.2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). See Jones v. State, 751 So.2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We therefore affirm appellant’s sentence.

We recognize that the Fourth District has ruled contrary to our opinion in Grant and has held that a sentence imposed under both the Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Act and the Habitual Offender Statute violates the principle of double jeopardy. See Melton v. State, 746 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Adams v. State, 750 So.2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Glare v. State, 745 So.2d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Thus, we certify conflict to the extent our holding on the double jeopardy issue conflicts with the Fourth District’s decision in these cases.

Affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., BLUE and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Michael Brinson appeals his conviction and sentence for robbery. Brinson asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; that section 775.082(8), Florida Statutes (1997), the Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Act, is unconstitutional; and that his sentence under both the Habitual Offender Statute and the Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Act violates the prohibition against double jeopardy. We affirm appellant’s conviction and the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal without further comment. Appellant’s claims as to the constitutionality of the Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Act were considered and rejected by this court in Grant v. State, 745 So.2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). See Jones v. State, 751 So.2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We therefore affirm appellant’s sentence.

We recognize that the Fourth District has ruled contrary to our opinion in Grant and has held that a sentence imposed under both the Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Act and the Habitual Offender Statute violates the principle of double jeopardy. See Melton v. State, 746 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Adams v. State, 750 So.2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Glare v. State, 745 So.2d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Thus, we certify conflict to the extent our holding on the double jeopardy issue conflicts with the Fourth District’s decision in these cases.

Affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., BLUE and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

751 So. 2d 1256, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2703, 2000 WL 275237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brinson-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack