State v. Eason

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Eason

592 So. 2d 1106, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8171, 1991 WL 158564

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 20, 1991

DocketNo. 90-2442

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 592 So. 2d 1106 (State v. Eason) 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

State v. Eason, 592 So. 2d 1106, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8171, 1991 WL 158564 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The State appeals from a sentence imposed pursuant to the habitual offender statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989). We affirm.

After adjudicating the defendant guilty of various offenses, the trial court declared the defendant a violent habitual offender and sentenced him to twenty-five years in prison for armed robbery. The State argues that under section 775.084(4)(b), the trial court was bound to sentence the defendant to life in prison with no eligibility for release for fifteen years. We disagree. “Contrary to the State’s assertion, the ‘shall sentence’ provision of the habitual offender statute ... is permissive, not mandatory.” Henry v. State, 581 So.2d 928 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (citations omitted). See also Smith v. State, 574 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). As we did in Henry, we certify conflict with State v. Allen, 573 So.2d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Pittman v. State, 570 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. denied, 581 So.2d 166 (Fla.1991); and Donald v. State, 562 So.2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. denied, 576 So.2d 291 (Fla.1991).¹

Affirmed; conflict certified.

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

PER CURIAM.

The State appeals from a sentence imposed pursuant to the habitual offender statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989). We affirm.

After adjudicating the defendant guilty of various offenses, the trial court declared the defendant a violent habitual offender and sentenced him to twenty-five years in prison for armed robbery. The State argues that under section 775.084(4)(b), the trial court was bound to sentence the defendant to life in prison with no eligibility for release for fifteen years. We disagree. “Contrary to the State’s assertion, the ‘shall sentence’ provision of the habitual offender statute ... is permissive, not mandatory.” Henry v. State, 581 So.2d 928 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (citations omitted). See also Smith v. State, 574 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). As we did in Henry, we certify conflict with State v. Allen, 573 So.2d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Pittman v. State, 570 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. denied, 581 So.2d 166 (Fla.1991); and Donald v. State, 562 So.2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. denied, 576 So.2d 291 (Fla.1991).¹

Affirmed; conflict certified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

592 So. 2d 1106, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8171, 1991 WL 158564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-eason-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack