Goodman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Goodman v. State

595 So. 2d 1118, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4454, 1992 WL 69034

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Goodman v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 567 So. 2d 37 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 8, 1992·No. No. 90-302·Published

Opinion

OPINION ON REMAND

PER CURIAM.

On appeal to this court, appellant raised two issues: (1) that Section 775.084, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), violates Article I, Sections 9 and 16, of the Florida Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (2) that appellant should not have been sentenced as an habitual felony offender because the two predicate convictions had been entered at the same time. In Goodman v. State, 578 So.2d 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), we affirmed as to the first issue; reversed as to the second issue; and certified the second issue to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has now quashed our decision on the second issue, and remanded to this court for further proceedings consistent with the decision in State v. Barnes, 595 So.2d 22 (Fla.1992). State v. Goodman, 595 So.2d 19 (Fla.1992). Based upon Barnes, we vacate and set aside our previous opinion, and affirm the trial court on both issues.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, ZEHMER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION ON REMAND

PER CURIAM.

On appeal to this court, appellant raised two issues: (1) that Section 775.084, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), violates Article I, Sections 9 and 16, of the Florida Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (2) that appellant should not have been sentenced as an habitual felony offender because the two predicate convictions had been entered at the same time. In Goodman v. State, 578 So.2d 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), we affirmed as to the first issue; reversed as to the second issue; and certified the second issue to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has now quashed our decision on the second issue, and remanded to this court for further proceedings consistent with the decision in State v. Barnes, 595 So.2d 22 (Fla.1992). State v. Goodman, 595 So.2d 19 (Fla.1992). Based upon Barnes, we vacate and set aside our previous opinion, and affirm the trial court on both issues.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, ZEHMER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Goodman v. State, 595 So. 2d 1118, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4454, 1992 WL 69034 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

595 So. 2d 1118 (Goodman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related