Dehart v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dehart v. State

601 So. 2d 1344, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8374, 1992 WL 182368

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 3, 1992

DocketNo. 91-1282

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 601 So. 2d 1344 (Dehart 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

Dehart v. State, 601 So. 2d 1344, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8374, 1992 WL 182368 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse appellant’s habitual offender sentence and remand for resentencing within the sentencing guidelines. As we did in Johnson v. State, 589 So.2d 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and Claybourne v. State, 600 So.2d 516 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), we certify the following question as one of great public importance. Additionally, we note conflict between the cases cited above and Beaubrum v. State, 595 So.2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), Jamison v. State, 583 [1345]*1345So.2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 591 So.2d 182 (Fla.1991), McCall v. State, 583 So.2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), juris, accepted, 593 So.2d 1052 (Fla.1992), and Gilmore v. State, 597 So.2d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

WHETHER THE CHAPTER 89-280 AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 775.084, FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1988), WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRIOR TO THEIR REENACTMENT AS PART OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES, BECAUSE IN VIOLATION OF THE SINGLE SUBJECT RULE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION.

ERVIN, MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse appellant’s habitual offender sentence and remand for resentencing within the sentencing guidelines. As we did in Johnson v. State, 589 So.2d 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and Claybourne v. State, 600 So.2d 516 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), we certify the following question as one of great public importance. Additionally, we note conflict between the cases cited above and Beaubrum v. State, 595 So.2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), Jamison v. State, 583 [1345]*1345So.2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 591 So.2d 182 (Fla.1991), McCall v. State, 583 So.2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), juris, accepted, 593 So.2d 1052 (Fla.1992), and Gilmore v. State, 597 So.2d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

WHETHER THE CHAPTER 89-280 AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 775.084, FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1988), WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRIOR TO THEIR REENACTMENT AS PART OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES, BECAUSE IN VIOLATION OF THE SINGLE SUBJECT RULE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION.

ERVIN, MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

601 So. 2d 1344, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8374, 1992 WL 182368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dehart-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack