Jeffries v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jeffries v. State

600 So. 2d 565, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6798, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1586

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 23, 1992

DocketNo. 91-1123

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 600 So. 2d 565 (Jeffries 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

Jeffries v. State, 600 So. 2d 565, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6798, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1586 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a prisoner serving a thirty-five year sentence for a 1980 conviction for burglary with assault, was convicted of attempted escape and possession of a weapon by a prisoner and sentenced as an habitual offender. We affirm, finding that appellant did not present sufficient evidence warranting a jury instruction on the defense of necessity, and that the trial court correctly ruled appellant to be an habitual offender based upon the reasoning of Smith v. State, 584 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). However, we certify the following question as one of great public importance:

UNDER THE REQUIREMENT OF THE HABITUAL OFFENDER STATUTE, SECTION 775.084(l)(a)2., FLORIDA STATUTES (1988 SUPP.), THAT THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH A DEFENDANT IS BEING SENTENCED BE COMMITTED WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF HIS RELEASE FROM A PRISON SENTENCE IMPOSED AS A RESULT OF A PRIOR CONVICTION, CAN A DEFENDANT, WHO IS STILL IN PRISON UNDER THE SENTENCE IMPOSED FOR SUCH PRIOR CONVICTION AT THE TIME HE COMMITS A NEW OFFENSE, BE SENTENCED AS AN HABITUAL OFFENDER?

ERVIN, SMITH and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a prisoner serving a thirty-five year sentence for a 1980 conviction for burglary with assault, was convicted of attempted escape and possession of a weapon by a prisoner and sentenced as an habitual offender. We affirm, finding that appellant did not present sufficient evidence warranting a jury instruction on the defense of necessity, and that the trial court correctly ruled appellant to be an habitual offender based upon the reasoning of Smith v. State, 584 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). However, we certify the following question as one of great public importance:

UNDER THE REQUIREMENT OF THE HABITUAL OFFENDER STATUTE, SECTION 775.084(l)(a)2., FLORIDA STATUTES (1988 SUPP.), THAT THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH A DEFENDANT IS BEING SENTENCED BE COMMITTED WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF HIS RELEASE FROM A PRISON SENTENCE IMPOSED AS A RESULT OF A PRIOR CONVICTION, CAN A DEFENDANT, WHO IS STILL IN PRISON UNDER THE SENTENCE IMPOSED FOR SUCH PRIOR CONVICTION AT THE TIME HE COMMITS A NEW OFFENSE, BE SENTENCED AS AN HABITUAL OFFENDER?

ERVIN, SMITH and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

600 So. 2d 565, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6798, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeffries-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack