Coney v. State

590 So. 2d 563, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 13711, 1991 WL 276891
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Coney v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 643 So. 2d 654
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 31, 1991·No. No. 90-2358·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of his conviction for robbery with a firearm and vacation of his sentence as an habitual offender. We affirm as to all points but write to memorialize his claim of error in sentencing. Appellant argues that his first-degree felony conviction, punishable by life, precludes enhancement under the habitual offender statute. While we affirm the sentence ordered, we certify that issue so as to pair this case for review with our decision in Westbrook v. State, 574 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), jurisdiction accepted, 584 So.2d 1000 (Fla.1991), where we determined such enhancement permissible.

Affirmed and certified.

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

Coney v. State, 590 So. 2d 563, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 13711, 1991 WL 276891 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

590 So. 2d 563 (Coney v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Westbrook v. State
574 So. 2d 1187 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)