Martin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Martin v. State

583 So. 2d 804, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 7901, 1991 WL 152497

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 12, 1991

DocketNo. 90-1251

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 583 So. 2d 804 (Martin 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

Martin v. State, 583 So. 2d 804, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 7901, 1991 WL 152497 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

ERVIN, Judge.

Appellant’s conviction is affirmed. Because, however, the habitual felony offender sentence imposed under Section 775.-084(l)(a)l, Florida Statutes (1989), is not supported by sequential convictions, appellant’s sentence is reversed and the case remanded for resentencing. Fuller v. State, 578 So.2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), petition for review filed, No. 77,907 (Fla. May 10,1991); Razz v. State, 576 So.2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), petition for review filed, No. 77,761 (Fla. Apr. 16, 1991). Accord Barnes v. State, 576 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), petition for review filed, No. 77,751 (Fla. Apr. 17, 1991). In accordance with the above case law, we certify the following question to the supreme court as one 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 THE STATE OR OTHER QUALIFIED OFFENSES,” REQUIRES THAT EACH OF THE FELONIES BE COMMITTED AFTER CONVICTION FOR THE IMMEDIATE PREVIOUS OFFENSE?

We affirm on the second issue appellant raised without comment.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for resentencing.

SMITH and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

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

ERVIN, Judge.

Appellant’s conviction is affirmed. Because, however, the habitual felony offender sentence imposed under Section 775.-084(l)(a)l, Florida Statutes (1989), is not supported by sequential convictions, appellant’s sentence is reversed and the case remanded for resentencing. Fuller v. State, 578 So.2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), petition for review filed, No. 77,907 (Fla. May 10,1991); Razz v. State, 576 So.2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), petition for review filed, No. 77,761 (Fla. Apr. 16, 1991). Accord Barnes v. State, 576 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), petition for review filed, No. 77,751 (Fla. Apr. 17, 1991). In accordance with the above case law, we certify the following question to the supreme court as one 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 THE STATE OR OTHER QUALIFIED OFFENSES,” REQUIRES THAT EACH OF THE FELONIES BE COMMITTED AFTER CONVICTION FOR THE IMMEDIATE PREVIOUS OFFENSE?

We affirm on the second issue appellant raised without comment.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for resentencing.

SMITH and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

583 So. 2d 804, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 7901, 1991 WL 152497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack