Dobson v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Dobson v. State

699 So. 2d 629, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 561, 1997 Fla. LEXIS 1363, 1997 WL 561505

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedSeptember 11, 1997

DocketNo. 87356

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 699 So. 2d 629 (Dobson 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

Dobson v. State, 699 So. 2d 629, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 561, 1997 Fla. LEXIS 1363, 1997 WL 561505 (Fla. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Dobson v. State, 665 So.2d 386 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We have exercised our discretion to review this decision because it summarily affirmed petitioner’s habitual offender sentence with a citation to Young v. State, 663 So.2d 1376 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Because we quashed Young to the extent that it held that a trial judge had the authority under section 775.08401 to sua sponte initiate habitual offender proceedings against an eligible defendant, we must also quash the Fifth District’s per curiam affirmance in Dobson where the district court relied solely on its earlier opinion in Young. See Young v. State, 699 So.2d 624 (Fla.1997).

It is so ordered.

KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. GRIMES, HARDING and WELLS, JJ., dissent.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Dobson v. State, 665 So.2d 386 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We have exercised our discretion to review this decision because it summarily affirmed petitioner’s habitual offender sentence with a citation to Young v. State, 663 So.2d 1376 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Because we quashed Young to the extent that it held that a trial judge had the authority under section 775.08401 to sua sponte initiate habitual offender proceedings against an eligible defendant, we must also quash the Fifth District’s per curiam affirmance in Dobson where the district court relied solely on its earlier opinion in Young. See Young v. State, 699 So.2d 624 (Fla.1997).

It is so ordered.

KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. GRIMES, HARDING and WELLS, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

699 So. 2d 629, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 561, 1997 Fla. LEXIS 1363, 1997 WL 561505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dobson-v-state-fla-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack