Duncan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Duncan v. State

578 So. 2d 905, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4599, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1355

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 14, 1991

DocketNo. 90-2023

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 578 So. 2d 905 (Duncan 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

Duncan v. State, 578 So. 2d 905, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4599, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1355 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Appellant appeals his enhanced sentences as an habitual felony offender, pursuant to section 775.084(l)(a)l, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), following his convictions of burglary of a dwelling with assault and attempted sexual battery with the use of great force. The trial judge classified appellant as an habitual offender based on two prior felony convictions which were rendered on the same day in 1986. In light of the decision in Barnes v. State, 576 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), in which this court reaffirmed the long-standing view that habitualization must be supported by sequential convictions and therefore cannot be based upon two convictions that occurred on the same day, classification of appellant as an habitual offender was error. See also Razz v. State, 576 So.2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) and Goodman v. State, 578 So.2d 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). As in Barnes, we certify the following question as 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 for re-sentencing.

ERVIN, J., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.

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

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Appellant appeals his enhanced sentences as an habitual felony offender, pursuant to section 775.084(l)(a)l, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), following his convictions of burglary of a dwelling with assault and attempted sexual battery with the use of great force. The trial judge classified appellant as an habitual offender based on two prior felony convictions which were rendered on the same day in 1986. In light of the decision in Barnes v. State, 576 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), in which this court reaffirmed the long-standing view that habitualization must be supported by sequential convictions and therefore cannot be based upon two convictions that occurred on the same day, classification of appellant as an habitual offender was error. See also Razz v. State, 576 So.2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) and Goodman v. State, 578 So.2d 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). As in Barnes, we certify the following question as 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 for re-sentencing.

ERVIN, J., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

578 So. 2d 905, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4599, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duncan-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack