Humiston v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Humiston v. State

908 So. 2d 1098, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 11064, 2005 WL 1681020

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 20, 2005

DocketNo. 1D04-2414

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 908 So. 2d 1098 (Humiston 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

Humiston v. State, 908 So. 2d 1098, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 11064, 2005 WL 1681020 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Saunders v. State, 863 So.2d 458, 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not prohibit the trial court’s finding that appellant qualified as an habitual felony offender. See, e.g., Jones v. State, 791 So.2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).”); see also Frumenti v. State, 885 So.2d 924, 925 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (holding a sentence under section 775.084, Florida Statutes, the Habitual Felony Offender statute, is not illegal because “Blakely merely applied Apprendi v. New Jersey”); McBride v. State, 884 So.2d 476, 478 (Fla, 4th DCA 2004) (holding Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), “does not entitle a defendant to [1099]*1099have a jury determine whether he has the requisite predicate convictions for a habitual felony offender sentence”).

ALLEN, WOLF, and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Saunders v. State, 863 So.2d 458, 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not prohibit the trial court’s finding that appellant qualified as an habitual felony offender. See, e.g., Jones v. State, 791 So.2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).”); see also Frumenti v. State, 885 So.2d 924, 925 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (holding a sentence under section 775.084, Florida Statutes, the Habitual Felony Offender statute, is not illegal because “Blakely merely applied Apprendi v. New Jersey”); McBride v. State, 884 So.2d 476, 478 (Fla, 4th DCA 2004) (holding Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), “does not entitle a defendant to [1099]*1099have a jury determine whether he has the requisite predicate convictions for a habitual felony offender sentence”).

ALLEN, WOLF, and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

908 So. 2d 1098, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 11064, 2005 WL 1681020, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/humiston-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack