Prudent v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Prudent v. State

898 So. 2d 1124, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 4356, 2005 WL 714052

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 30, 2005

DocketNo. 3D04-1771

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 898 So. 2d 1124 (Prudent 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

Prudent v. State, 898 So. 2d 1124, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 4356, 2005 WL 714052 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ROTHENBERG, Judge.

Ronald Prudent appeals his thirty year sentence as a habitual offender, asserting that he does not qualify as a habitual offender because he had received probation for two of the prior convictions relied upon. He asserts that probation is not a sentence, and therefore cannot be relied upon as a qualifying offense for an enhanced penalty under the habitual offender statute. As Prudent recognizes, his position is contrary to this court’s recent decision in State v. Del Castillo, 890 So.2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). See also Teal v. State, 862 So.2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), appeal docketed, No. SC04-102 (Fla.2004); McCall v. State, 862 So.2d 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), appeal docketed, No. SC04-136 (Fla.2004). We therefore affirm, and certify conflict with Richardson v. State, 884 So.2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), appeal docketed, No. SC04-174 (Fla.2004).

Affirmed; conflict certified.

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

ROTHENBERG, Judge.

Ronald Prudent appeals his thirty year sentence as a habitual offender, asserting that he does not qualify as a habitual offender because he had received probation for two of the prior convictions relied upon. He asserts that probation is not a sentence, and therefore cannot be relied upon as a qualifying offense for an enhanced penalty under the habitual offender statute. As Prudent recognizes, his position is contrary to this court’s recent decision in State v. Del Castillo, 890 So.2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). See also Teal v. State, 862 So.2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), appeal docketed, No. SC04-102 (Fla.2004); McCall v. State, 862 So.2d 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), appeal docketed, No. SC04-136 (Fla.2004). We therefore affirm, and certify conflict with Richardson v. State, 884 So.2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), appeal docketed, No. SC04-174 (Fla.2004).

Affirmed; conflict certified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

898 So. 2d 1124, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 4356, 2005 WL 714052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prudent-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack