Sherman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sherman v. State

500 So. 2d 720, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 218, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6300

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 7, 1987

DocketNo. 86-948

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 500 So. 2d 720 (Sherman 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

Sherman v. State, 500 So. 2d 720, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 218, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6300 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant pled nolo contendere to the charge of grand theft and was sentenced to seven years in prison. The reason given for the departure from the sentencing guidelines was the determination that appellant was a habitual offender. The supreme court recently held that the habitual offender statute cannot be used as a basis for guidelines departure. Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986). Therefore, the appellant’s sentence cannot stand.

Since appellant had been determined to be indigent, appellant’s sentence also included a requirement to perform community service in lieu of $200 costs required by section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985). Appellant attacks the constitutionality of the statute on two grounds.

His argument that section 27.3455 violates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution has been rejected in Johnson v. State, 495 So.2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), and need not be further discussed.

Appellant also contends that the passage of section 27.3455 violated article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution by amending section 939.05, Florida Statutes (1983), and section 944.275, Florida Statutes (1983), without setting out in full the [721]*721amended acts. Because section 27.3455 did not purport to amend these statutes and is not in irreconcilable conflict with either of them, there was no such constitutional violation. State v. J.R.M., 388 So.2d 1227 (Fla.1980); Auto Owners Insurance Co. v. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, 153 So.2d 722 (Fla.1963); City of St. Petersburg v. English, 54 Fla. 585, 45 So. 483 (1907).

We affirm appellant’s conviction. We vacate his sentence and remand for resen-tencing.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant pled nolo contendere to the charge of grand theft and was sentenced to seven years in prison. The reason given for the departure from the sentencing guidelines was the determination that appellant was a habitual offender. The supreme court recently held that the habitual offender statute cannot be used as a basis for guidelines departure. Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986). Therefore, the appellant’s sentence cannot stand.

Since appellant had been determined to be indigent, appellant’s sentence also included a requirement to perform community service in lieu of $200 costs required by section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985). Appellant attacks the constitutionality of the statute on two grounds.

His argument that section 27.3455 violates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution has been rejected in Johnson v. State, 495 So.2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), and need not be further discussed.

Appellant also contends that the passage of section 27.3455 violated article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution by amending section 939.05, Florida Statutes (1983), and section 944.275, Florida Statutes (1983), without setting out in full the [721]*721amended acts. Because section 27.3455 did not purport to amend these statutes and is not in irreconcilable conflict with either of them, there was no such constitutional violation. State v. J.R.M., 388 So.2d 1227 (Fla.1980); Auto Owners Insurance Co. v. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, 153 So.2d 722 (Fla.1963); City of St. Petersburg v. English, 54 Fla. 585, 45 So. 483 (1907).

We affirm appellant’s conviction. We vacate his sentence and remand for resen-tencing.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

500 So. 2d 720, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 218, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherman-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack