Home/Supreme Court of Florida/State v. Cantrell

State v. Cantrell

417 So. 2d 260
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided July 8, 1982·No. 60721·Published·Cited by 15 cases

Opinion

417 So.2d 260 (1982)

STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
David Mark CANTRELL, Respondent.

No. 60721.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 8, 1982.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Lawrence A. Kaden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for petitioner.

David M. Cantrell, in pro. per.

McDONALD, Justice.

Cantrell successfully appealed a trial court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief wherein he contended that the imposition of separate sentences for the offenses of burglary and possession of burglary tools was improper. When it reversed the trial court's denial the First District Court of Appeal certified the following question as being of great public importance:

The Supreme Court of the United States having ruled in Albernaz v. United States [450 U.S. 333, 101 S.Ct. 1137, 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981)], that the imposition of consecutive sentences for violation in one criminal transaction of two separate statutes is not precluded by the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, does the Supreme Court of Florida desire to adopt the same construction or a more restrictive construction to Article I, Section 9, of the Florida Constitution?

Cantrell v. State, 405 So.2d 986, 990 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

In our recent decision of Borges v. State, 415 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 1982), we held that it is permissible to impose consecutive sentences for violations committed during one criminal transaction of two or more separate statutes. To answer the instant question, we apply and construe article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution in the same manner that the United States Supreme Court applied the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution in Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 101 S.Ct. 1137, 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981), as it relates to consecutive sentences for violation in one criminal transaction of two separate statutes. The decision of the district court in Cantrell is quashed.

It is so ordered.

ADKINS, Acting C.J., and BOYD, OVERTON and EHRLICH, JJ., concur.

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

State v. Cantrell, 417 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1982).

417 So. 2d 260 (State v. Cantrell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Juan L. Jenkins v. State of Florida
269 So. 3d 584 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019)
Hughes v. State
22 So. 3d 132 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
State v. McNab
642 So. 2d 41 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Doggett v. State
584 So. 2d 116 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Davis v. State
560 So. 2d 1231 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Glenn v. State
537 So. 2d 611 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Kraus v. State
491 So. 2d 1278 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
State v. Gibson
452 So. 2d 553 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1984)
Rodriquez v. State
443 So. 2d 236 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Giddings v. State
442 So. 2d 336 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Torrence v. State
440 So. 2d 392 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Garmon v. State
434 So. 2d 1036 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Carr v. State
430 So. 2d 978 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Baker v. State
425 So. 2d 36 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Ferguson v. State
420 So. 2d 585 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1982)