Malone v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Malone v. State

588 So. 2d 674, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11397, 1991 WL 231778

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 12, 1991

DocketNo. 91-907

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 588 So. 2d 674 (Malone 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

Malone v. State, 588 So. 2d 674, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11397, 1991 WL 231778 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

JOANOS, Chief Judge.

Appellant contends he was sentenced improperly as an habitual felony offender, where the predicate convictions relied upon [675]*675for habitual felony offender sentencing occurred on the same date. We agree, and reverse and remand appellant’s enhanced sentence for resentencing. See Fuller v. State, 578 So.2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Barnes v. State, 576 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). In accordance with our decisions in Fuller v. State, and Razz v. State, 576 So.2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), we certify the following question to the supreme court as a question of great public importance:

WHETHER SECTION 775.084(l)(a)l, FLORIDA STATUTES (1989), WHICH DEFINES HABITUAL FELONY OFFENDERS AS THOSE WHO HAVE “PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY COMBINATION OF TWO OR MORE FELONIES IN THIS STATE OR OTHER QUALIFIED OFFENSES,” REQUIRES THAT EACH OF THE FELONIES BE COMMITTED AFTER CONVICTION FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PREVIOUS OFFENSES?

Accordingly, appellant’s enhanced sentence imposed pursuant to the habitual felony offender statute is vacated, and the cause is remanded for resentencing.

ALLEN, J., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.

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

JOANOS, Chief Judge.

Appellant contends he was sentenced improperly as an habitual felony offender, where the predicate convictions relied upon [675]*675for habitual felony offender sentencing occurred on the same date. We agree, and reverse and remand appellant’s enhanced sentence for resentencing. See Fuller v. State, 578 So.2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Barnes v. State, 576 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). In accordance with our decisions in Fuller v. State, and Razz v. State, 576 So.2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), we certify the following question to the supreme court as a question of great public importance:

WHETHER SECTION 775.084(l)(a)l, FLORIDA STATUTES (1989), WHICH DEFINES HABITUAL FELONY OFFENDERS AS THOSE WHO HAVE “PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY COMBINATION OF TWO OR MORE FELONIES IN THIS STATE OR OTHER QUALIFIED OFFENSES,” REQUIRES THAT EACH OF THE FELONIES BE COMMITTED AFTER CONVICTION FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PREVIOUS OFFENSES?

Accordingly, appellant’s enhanced sentence imposed pursuant to the habitual felony offender statute is vacated, and the cause is remanded for resentencing.

ALLEN, J., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

588 So. 2d 674, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11397, 1991 WL 231778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malone-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack