Sloan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sloan v. State

593 So. 2d 628, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1880, 1992 WL 38530

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 3, 1992

DocketNo. 91-176

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 593 So. 2d 628 (Sloan 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

Sloan v. State, 593 So. 2d 628, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1880, 1992 WL 38530 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Terry Joe Sloan appeals his adjudication as a habitual felony offender under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988).

We conclude that the trial court’s oral findings at the sentencing hearing satisfied the statutory requirements. See Parker v. State, 546 So.2d 727 (Fla.1989).

Defendant also asserts that the habitual offender statute violates the double jeopardy clauses of the Florida and the United States Constitutions because it enhances his punishment based on his previous convictions. That argument was not made below, but in any event, has been rejected previously. Reynolds v. Cochran, 138 So.2d 500, 503 (Fla.1962); Washington v. Mayo, 91 So.2d 621, 623 (Fla.1956); Cross v. State, 96 Fla. 768, 781-87, 119 So. 380, 384-87 (1928); Perkins v. State, 583 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA), jurisdiction accepted, 590 So.2d 421 (Fla.), review pending, No. 78,613 (1991); Tillman v. State, 586 So.2d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA) (certifying question), review pending, No. 78,715 (Fla.1991); Jolly v. State, 590 So.2d 2 (Fla. 1st DCA) (certifying question), review pending, No. 79,121 (Fla.1991).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Terry Joe Sloan appeals his adjudication as a habitual felony offender under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988).

We conclude that the trial court’s oral findings at the sentencing hearing satisfied the statutory requirements. See Parker v. State, 546 So.2d 727 (Fla.1989).

Defendant also asserts that the habitual offender statute violates the double jeopardy clauses of the Florida and the United States Constitutions because it enhances his punishment based on his previous convictions. That argument was not made below, but in any event, has been rejected previously. Reynolds v. Cochran, 138 So.2d 500, 503 (Fla.1962); Washington v. Mayo, 91 So.2d 621, 623 (Fla.1956); Cross v. State, 96 Fla. 768, 781-87, 119 So. 380, 384-87 (1928); Perkins v. State, 583 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA), jurisdiction accepted, 590 So.2d 421 (Fla.), review pending, No. 78,613 (1991); Tillman v. State, 586 So.2d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA) (certifying question), review pending, No. 78,715 (Fla.1991); Jolly v. State, 590 So.2d 2 (Fla. 1st DCA) (certifying question), review pending, No. 79,121 (Fla.1991).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

593 So. 2d 628, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1880, 1992 WL 38530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sloan-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack