Gould v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gould v. State

860 So. 2d 1056, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18392, 2003 WL 22867641

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 5, 2003

DocketNo. 5D02-3395

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 860 So. 2d 1056 (Gould 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

Gould v. State, 860 So. 2d 1056, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18392, 2003 WL 22867641 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

George Gould was convicted of aggravated battery-reclassified pursuant to section 784.045, Florida Statutes (2001), and was sentenced to state prison as a habitual offender and prison releasee reoffender. His appeal of his judgment and sentence attacks, first the verdict form used by the jury, and next the constitutionality of the prison releasee reoffender statute, section 775.082(9)(d), Florida Statutes (2001). We affirm.

With regard to the verdict form used, while we continue to stress that separate jury findings for enhancements and reclas-sifications are by far the clearest means to convey the jury’s intention, we are unable to say that the form used in the present case violates the requirements of State v. Hargrove, 694 So.2d 729 (Fla.1997). See also Bass v. State, 739 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Mr. Gould’s constitutional attack on section 775.082(9)(d) is without merit in view of the supreme court’s decision in State v. Cotton, 769 So.2d 345 (Fla.2000). See also Rollinson v. State, 778 So.2d 971 (Fla.2001) (rejecting constitutional challenges to prison releasee reof-fender act); Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655 (Fla.2000) (rejecting ex post facto challenge to the act, and holding that the act violates neither the single subject rule for legislation nor principals of equal protection); McKnight v. State, 769 So.2d 1039 (Fla.2000) (rejecting McKnight’s due process challenge to prison releasee reoffen-der act); Ellis v. State, 762 So.2d 912 (Fla.2000) (prison releasee reoffender act does not violate separation of powers).

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, C.J., PALMER and MONACO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

George Gould was convicted of aggravated battery-reclassified pursuant to section 784.045, Florida Statutes (2001), and was sentenced to state prison as a habitual offender and prison releasee reoffender. His appeal of his judgment and sentence attacks, first the verdict form used by the jury, and next the constitutionality of the prison releasee reoffender statute, section 775.082(9)(d), Florida Statutes (2001). We affirm.

With regard to the verdict form used, while we continue to stress that separate jury findings for enhancements and reclas-sifications are by far the clearest means to convey the jury’s intention, we are unable to say that the form used in the present case violates the requirements of State v. Hargrove, 694 So.2d 729 (Fla.1997). See also Bass v. State, 739 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Mr. Gould’s constitutional attack on section 775.082(9)(d) is without merit in view of the supreme court’s decision in State v. Cotton, 769 So.2d 345 (Fla.2000). See also Rollinson v. State, 778 So.2d 971 (Fla.2001) (rejecting constitutional challenges to prison releasee reof-fender act); Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655 (Fla.2000) (rejecting ex post facto challenge to the act, and holding that the act violates neither the single subject rule for legislation nor principals of equal protection); McKnight v. State, 769 So.2d 1039 (Fla.2000) (rejecting McKnight’s due process challenge to prison releasee reoffen-der act); Ellis v. State, 762 So.2d 912 (Fla.2000) (prison releasee reoffender act does not violate separation of powers).

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, C.J., PALMER and MONACO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

860 So. 2d 1056, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18392, 2003 WL 22867641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gould-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack