State v. Davis

Supreme Court of Florida

State v. Davis

791 So. 2d 1085, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 517, 2001 Fla. LEXIS 1378, 2001 WL 776259

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJuly 12, 2001

DocketNo. SC00-1646

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 791 So. 2d 1085 (State v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Davis, 791 So. 2d 1085, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 517, 2001 Fla. LEXIS 1378, 2001 WL 776259 (Fla. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

LEWIS, J.

We have for review Davis v. State, 760 So.2d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). We have [1086]*1086jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

We quash, in part, the decision of the district court to the extent it determines that a defendant cannot be sentenced as both a prison releasee reoffender and a habitual violent felony offender. Such sentencing does not constitute double jeopardy. See Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655 (Fla.2000) (determining that sentencing under both the Prison Releasee Reoffen-der Act (the “Act”) and another recidivist statute did not constitute double jeopardy, but that the imposition of equal, concurrent sentences under both statutes violated the Act itself). Accordingly, we remand the issue for reconsideration upon application of our decisions in Grant; State v. Cotton, 769 So.2d 345 (Fla.2000); McKnight v. State, 769 So.2d 1039 (Fla.2000); and Ellis v. State, 762 So.2d 912 (Fla.2000).

It is so ordered.

WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, and PARIENTE, JJ., concur. QUINCE, J., dissents.

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

LEWIS, J.

We have for review Davis v. State, 760 So.2d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). We have [1086]*1086jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

We quash, in part, the decision of the district court to the extent it determines that a defendant cannot be sentenced as both a prison releasee reoffender and a habitual violent felony offender. Such sentencing does not constitute double jeopardy. See Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655 (Fla.2000) (determining that sentencing under both the Prison Releasee Reoffen-der Act (the “Act”) and another recidivist statute did not constitute double jeopardy, but that the imposition of equal, concurrent sentences under both statutes violated the Act itself). Accordingly, we remand the issue for reconsideration upon application of our decisions in Grant; State v. Cotton, 769 So.2d 345 (Fla.2000); McKnight v. State, 769 So.2d 1039 (Fla.2000); and Ellis v. State, 762 So.2d 912 (Fla.2000).

It is so ordered.

WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, and PARIENTE, JJ., concur. QUINCE, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

791 So. 2d 1085, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 517, 2001 Fla. LEXIS 1378, 2001 WL 776259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-davis-fla-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack