Miller v. State

595 So. 2d 1112, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 3877, 1992 WL 64471

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 3, 1992·No. No. 91-02157·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Gagman v. State, 584 So.2d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We agree with Gagman and thus certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question of great public importance:

WHETHER THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSES OF THE UNITED STATES AND FLORIDA CONSTITUTIONS WERE VIOLATED BY THE TRIAL COURT’S RECLASSIFYING APPELLANT’S OFFENSE AS FELONY PETIT THEFT, THEN USING THAT FELONY CLASSIFICATION TO ENHANCE APPELLANT’S SENTENCE PURSUANT [1113]*1113TO THE HABITUAL VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER STATUTE.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LEHAN and HALL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Gagman v. State, 584 So.2d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We agree with Gagman and thus certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question of great public importance:

WHETHER THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSES OF THE UNITED STATES AND FLORIDA CONSTITUTIONS WERE VIOLATED BY THE TRIAL COURT’S RECLASSIFYING APPELLANT’S OFFENSE AS FELONY PETIT THEFT, THEN USING THAT FELONY CLASSIFICATION TO ENHANCE APPELLANT’S SENTENCE PURSUANT [1113]*1113TO THE HABITUAL VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER STATUTE.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LEHAN and HALL, JJ., concur.

Miller v. State, 595 So. 2d 1112, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 3877, 1992 WL 64471 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

595 So. 2d 1112 (Miller v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Miller v. State

616 So. 2d 15 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1993)

Opinion

Related