Ringel v. State

366 So. 2d 758
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedNovember 9, 1978
Docket52311
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 366 So. 2d 758 (Ringel 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
Ringel v. State, 366 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1978).

Opinion

366 So.2d 758 (1978)

Donald Lee RINGEL, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 52311.

Supreme Court of Florida.

November 9, 1978.
Rehearing Denied February 15, 1979.

Richard E. Mandell and Michael Sigman, Orlando, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Basil S. Diamond, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

*759 Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender; and Jerry L. Schwarz, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for defendants Jay Dean Mitchell, Thomas Heyden Wright, Jr., Robert William Armentrout, William B. Beaver, Joseph J. Santarsiere, Michael L. Fulghum, Robert Allen Northwick, Gamal A. Elahrag and Michael L. Hopson, amicus curiae.

ADKINS, Justice.

This cause is here on Petition for Writ of Certiorari reported by certificate of the District Court of Appeal, 4th District, that its decision reported in 352 So.2d 88 is one which involves a question of great public interest. See Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.

The question certified as being of great public interest is as follows:

"Do the provisions of Section 39.02(5)(c) of the Florida Statutes relating to the treatment of juvenile offenders as adults apply to violations of the law the penalty for which includes but may also be less than life imprisonment?"

We answer this question in the affirmative and also hold that a juvenile indicted and convicted as an adult, Section 39.02(5)(c), Florida Statutes (1975), is subject to the statutory minimum sentencing provision of Section 775.087, Florida Statutes (1975).

We approve and adopt the opinion of the District Court of Appeal.

It is so ordered.

ENGLAND, C.J., and BOYD, OVERTON and SUNDBERG, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ritchie v. State
670 So. 2d 924 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1996)
Gibson v. State
619 So. 2d 31 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Tomlinson v. State
589 So. 2d 362 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Burdick v. State
584 So. 2d 1035 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Merritt v. State
555 So. 2d 934 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
DCW v. State
445 So. 2d 333 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1984)
Postell v. State
383 So. 2d 1159 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Robidoux v. Coker
383 So. 2d 719 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
366 So. 2d 758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ringel-v-state-fla-1978.