Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Tillman v. State

Tillman v. State

586 So. 2d 1269, 1991 WL 193132
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 30, 1991·No. 90-2859·Published·Cited by 15 cases

Opinion

586 So.2d 1269 (1991)

Leshawn TILLMAN, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 90-2859.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

September 30, 1991.
Rehearing Denied November 1, 1991.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Abel Gomez, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Sara D. Baggett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Leshawn Tillman has appealed his classification and sentence as an habitual violent felony offender pursuant to section 775.084(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Tillman received this sentence for selling cocaine (a non-violent felony), based on a previous conviction of armed robbery (a violent felony). We affirm, but certify two questions as being of great public importance.

Tillman's argument on appeal is that section 775.084(1)(b) is unconstitutional. He contends that it: 1) denies equal protection in that not all who are eligible for habitual violent felony offender status are so sentenced, 2) offends the requirements of due process by its failure to require that the current offense be violent, and 3) violates the constitutional protection against double jeopardy by increasing punishment due to the nature of a prior offense. This court has ruled adversely to Tillman on each of these issues. See Barber v. State, 564 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied 576 So.2d 284 (Fla. 1990), Ross v. State, 579 So.2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and Perkins v. State, 583 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), respectively. We therefore affirm.

However, pursuant to Rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, we certify the following questions to be of great public importance:

1. DOES IT VIOLATE A DEFENDANT'S SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WHEN HE IS CLASSIFIED AS A VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 775.084, AND THEREBY SUBJECTED TO AN EXTENDED TERM OF IMPRISONMENT, IF HE HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF AN ENUMERATED VIOLENT FELONY WITHIN THE PREVIOUS FIVE YEARS, EVEN THOUGH HIS PRESENT OFFENSE IS A NON-VIOLENT FELONY?
2. DOES SECTION 775.084(1)(b) VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY BY INCREASING A DEFENDANT'S PUNISHMENT DUE TO THE NATURE OF A PRIOR OFFENSE?

Affirmed.

JOANOS, C.J., and SMITH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

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

Tillman v. State, 586 So. 2d 1269, 1991 WL 193132 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

586 So. 2d 1269 (Tillman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cecil v. State
611 So. 2d 584 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Tillman v. State
609 So. 2d 1295 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)
Penton v. State
605 So. 2d 1319 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Allen v. State
604 So. 2d 934 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Warren v. State
601 So. 2d 1252 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Hale v. State
600 So. 2d 1228 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Maeweather v. State
599 So. 2d 733 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Ward v. State
598 So. 2d 331 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Funchess v. State
597 So. 2d 985 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Simmons v. State
596 So. 2d 1156 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Scott v. State
600 So. 2d 1 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Sloan v. State
593 So. 2d 628 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Rodgers v. State
595 So. 2d 99 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Hernandez v. State
592 So. 2d 764 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Jolly v. State
590 So. 2d 2 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)