Finley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Finley v. State

765 So. 2d 985, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 11467, 2000 WL 1268828

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 8, 2000

DocketNo. 1D99-3271

StatusPublished

This text of 765 So. 2d 985 (Finley 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

Finley v. State, 765 So. 2d 985, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 11467, 2000 WL 1268828 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Harrison Lee Finley appeals his sentence as both a prison releasee reoffender and habitual violent felony offender, arguing that it violated double jeopardy principles for him to be sentenced both as a prison releasee reoffender and as a habitual violent felony offender for a single robbery conviction. As appellant correctly acknowledges, we have held that such a sentence structure does not violate double jeopardy proscriptions and, accordingly, we affirm. See Barge v. State, 763 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Bloodworth v. State, 754 So.2d 894. (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Smith v. State, 754 So.2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Miller v. State, 751 So.2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. granted, 761 So.2d 330 (Fla.2000). We certify conflict with Lewis v. State, 751 So.2d 106 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), and Adams v. State, 750 So.2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

JOANOS, LAWRENCE AND VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Harrison Lee Finley appeals his sentence as both a prison releasee reoffender and habitual violent felony offender, arguing that it violated double jeopardy principles for him to be sentenced both as a prison releasee reoffender and as a habitual violent felony offender for a single robbery conviction. As appellant correctly acknowledges, we have held that such a sentence structure does not violate double jeopardy proscriptions and, accordingly, we affirm. See Barge v. State, 763 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Bloodworth v. State, 754 So.2d 894. (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Smith v. State, 754 So.2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Miller v. State, 751 So.2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. granted, 761 So.2d 330 (Fla.2000). We certify conflict with Lewis v. State, 751 So.2d 106 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), and Adams v. State, 750 So.2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

JOANOS, LAWRENCE AND VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

765 So. 2d 985, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 11467, 2000 WL 1268828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finley-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack