McCall v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

McCall v. State

616 So. 2d 10, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 80, 1993 Fla. LEXIS 70, 1992 WL 407264

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJanuary 21, 1993

DocketNo. 78536

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 616 So. 2d 10 (McCall v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McCall v. State, 616 So. 2d 10, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 80, 1993 Fla. LEXIS 70, 1992 WL 407264 (Fla. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

OVERTON, Justice.

We have for review McCall v. State, 583 So.2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), in which the district court held that chapter 89-280, Laws of Florida,¹ did not violate the constitutional single subject requirement of article III, section 6, of the Florida Constitution. We recently reached a contrary result in addressing that same issue in State v. Johnson, 616 So.2d 1 (Fla.1993).² In accordance with our decision in Johnson, we quash, in part, the district court’s decision in McCall.

[11]*11Nevertheless, we approve McCall’s sentence. As we noted in Johnson, the record in this case reflects that McCall was sentenced under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989), because of several prior felony convictions, including delivery of cocaine and grand theft. None of the prior conviction categories under which McCall was habitualized were altered by the amendments to section 775.084 contained in chapter 89-280. Consequently, we approve the result of the district court’s decision because McCall's sentence is not affected by our decision in Johnson. We decline to consider the remaining issues raised by McCall.

It is so ordered.

BARKETT, C.J., and McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.

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

OVERTON, Justice.

We have for review McCall v. State, 583 So.2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), in which the district court held that chapter 89-280, Laws of Florida,¹ did not violate the constitutional single subject requirement of article III, section 6, of the Florida Constitution. We recently reached a contrary result in addressing that same issue in State v. Johnson, 616 So.2d 1 (Fla.1993).² In accordance with our decision in Johnson, we quash, in part, the district court’s decision in McCall.

[11]*11Nevertheless, we approve McCall’s sentence. As we noted in Johnson, the record in this case reflects that McCall was sentenced under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989), because of several prior felony convictions, including delivery of cocaine and grand theft. None of the prior conviction categories under which McCall was habitualized were altered by the amendments to section 775.084 contained in chapter 89-280. Consequently, we approve the result of the district court’s decision because McCall's sentence is not affected by our decision in Johnson. We decline to consider the remaining issues raised by McCall.

It is so ordered.

BARKETT, C.J., and McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

616 So. 2d 10, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 80, 1993 Fla. LEXIS 70, 1992 WL 407264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccall-v-state-fla-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack