Livingston v. State

497 So. 2d 998, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2428, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10693
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 20, 1986·No. No. 86-557·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find no merit in defendant’s contention that he was entitled to discharge under [999]*999the speedy trial rule, Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(a), so his conviction is affirmed. That portion of the sentence imposing community service in lieu of $200 court costs on the indigent defendant is reversed because the crime for which he was convicted was committed prior to the effective date of section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985). See Yost v. State, 489 So.2d 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). We again certify to the Supreme Court of Florida the following question of great public importance.

DOES THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 27.3455, FLORIDA STATUTES (1985) TO CRIMES COMMITTED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE STATUTE VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, OR DOES THE STATUTE MERELY EFFECT A PROCEDURAL CHANGE AS IS PERMITTED UNDER STATE v. JACKSON, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985)?

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part, QUESTION CERTIFIED.

DAUKSCH, ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ., concur.

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

Livingston v. State, 497 So. 2d 998, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2428, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10693 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

497 So. 2d 998 (Livingston v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Livingston v. State
510 So. 2d 295 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1987)