Rose v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rose v. State

698 So. 2d 380, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9705, 1997 WL 525595

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 27, 1997

DocketNo. 97-01130

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 698 So. 2d 380 (Rose 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

Rose v. State, 698 So. 2d 380, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9705, 1997 WL 525595 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PARKER, Chief Judge.

Willie Lee Rose appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Rose raises four grounds for relief in his motion, only one of which has merit. We [381]*381affirm the first three issues without discussion; however, we reverse and remand this case to the trial court to determine if Rose is entitled to a new sentencing hearing pursuant to State v. Johnson, 616 So.2d 1 (Fla.1993).

Rose alleges that his crimes occurred on September 1, 1990, and that one of the underlying crimes used by the trial court to impose the habitual offender sentence was aggravated battery. Rose alleges that the date of the crimes and the underlying crime used to enhance his sentence place him squarely within the supreme court’s holding in Johnson, and therefore his sentences violate the single subject requirement of article III, section 6, of the Florida Constitution and require a new sentencing hearing. The State agrees that Rose is entitled to a new sentencing hearing pursuant to Johnson.

We affirm the trial court on the first three issues raised in Rose’s motion. However, based upon the trial court’s failure to address the Johnson issue in its order and the state’s conclusion that Rose is entitled to a new sentencing hearing, we reverse and remand this case to the trial court to determine whether the date of Rose’s crimes and Rose’s underlying felony convictions permit the imposition of a habitual felony offender sentence. If the trial court determines that Johnson does apply, Rose is entitled to a new sentencing hearing.

PATTERSON and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

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

PARKER, Chief Judge.

Willie Lee Rose appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Rose raises four grounds for relief in his motion, only one of which has merit. We [381]*381affirm the first three issues without discussion; however, we reverse and remand this case to the trial court to determine if Rose is entitled to a new sentencing hearing pursuant to State v. Johnson, 616 So.2d 1 (Fla.1993).

Rose alleges that his crimes occurred on September 1, 1990, and that one of the underlying crimes used by the trial court to impose the habitual offender sentence was aggravated battery. Rose alleges that the date of the crimes and the underlying crime used to enhance his sentence place him squarely within the supreme court’s holding in Johnson, and therefore his sentences violate the single subject requirement of article III, section 6, of the Florida Constitution and require a new sentencing hearing. The State agrees that Rose is entitled to a new sentencing hearing pursuant to Johnson.

We affirm the trial court on the first three issues raised in Rose’s motion. However, based upon the trial court’s failure to address the Johnson issue in its order and the state’s conclusion that Rose is entitled to a new sentencing hearing, we reverse and remand this case to the trial court to determine whether the date of Rose’s crimes and Rose’s underlying felony convictions permit the imposition of a habitual felony offender sentence. If the trial court determines that Johnson does apply, Rose is entitled to a new sentencing hearing.

PATTERSON and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

698 So. 2d 380, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9705, 1997 WL 525595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack