Rucker v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rucker v. State

598 So. 2d 326, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5842, 1992 WL 109632

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 27, 1992

DocketNo. 91-2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 598 So. 2d 326 (Rucker 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

Rucker v. State, 598 So. 2d 326, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5842, 1992 WL 109632 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of his judgment and sentence on burglary and criminal mischief charges. We affirm the first two issues, but reverse as to the sentencing issue raised and remand for resentencing pursuant to Anderson v. State, 592 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), rehearing denied (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 13, 1992) and Hodges v. State, 596 So.2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). As in Anderson and Hodges, we certify the following question as one of great public importance:

DOES THE HOLDING IN EUTSEY V. STATE, 383 SO.2D 219 (FLA.1980), THAT THE STATE HAS NO BURDEN OF PROOF AS TO WHETHER THE CONVICTIONS NECESSARY FOR HABITUAL FELONY OFFENDER SENTENCING HAVE BEEN PARDONED OR SET ASIDE, IN THAT THEY ARE “AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AVAILABLE TO [A DEFENDANT],” EUTSEY AT 226, RELIEVE THE TRIAL COURT OF ITS STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO MAKE FINDINGS REGARDING THOSE FACTORS, IF THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY RAISE, AS A DEFENSE, THAT THE QUALIFYING CONVICTIONS PRO[327]*327VIDED BY THE STATE HAVE BEEN PARDONED OR SET ASIDE?

JOANOS, C.J., and ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of his judgment and sentence on burglary and criminal mischief charges. We affirm the first two issues, but reverse as to the sentencing issue raised and remand for resentencing pursuant to Anderson v. State, 592 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), rehearing denied (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 13, 1992) and Hodges v. State, 596 So.2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). As in Anderson and Hodges, we certify the following question as one of great public importance:

DOES THE HOLDING IN EUTSEY V. STATE, 383 SO.2D 219 (FLA.1980), THAT THE STATE HAS NO BURDEN OF PROOF AS TO WHETHER THE CONVICTIONS NECESSARY FOR HABITUAL FELONY OFFENDER SENTENCING HAVE BEEN PARDONED OR SET ASIDE, IN THAT THEY ARE “AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AVAILABLE TO [A DEFENDANT],” EUTSEY AT 226, RELIEVE THE TRIAL COURT OF ITS STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO MAKE FINDINGS REGARDING THOSE FACTORS, IF THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY RAISE, AS A DEFENSE, THAT THE QUALIFYING CONVICTIONS PRO[327]*327VIDED BY THE STATE HAVE BEEN PARDONED OR SET ASIDE?

JOANOS, C.J., and ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

598 So. 2d 326, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5842, 1992 WL 109632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rucker-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack