Tucker v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tucker v. State

576 So. 2d 931, 1991 WL 41011

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 28, 1991

Docket90-1478, 90-1479

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 576 So. 2d 931 (Tucker 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

Tucker v. State, 576 So. 2d 931, 1991 WL 41011 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

576 So.2d 931 (1991)

Timothy E. TUCKER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 90-1478, 90-1479.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

March 28, 1991.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender and Michael S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Nancy Ryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

*932 DIAMANTIS, Judge.

Defendant pled guilty to grand theft of a motor vehicle, section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1989), and nolo contendere to robbery with a firearm, section 812.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1989). Defendant was convicted and sentenced as an habitual felony offender^[1] to 10 years for the grand theft and life with a minimum mandatory of 3 years for the robbery with a firearm. The sentences are to be served concurrently. Defendant claims error in his sentence on the robbery offense. We affirm.

Defendant argues that the court erred in sentencing him for robbery under the habitual offender statute because that statute does not provide for the enhancement of felonies of the first degree punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding life. Defendant cites Barber v. State, 564 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) and its progeny to support this theory. See Gholston v. State, 16 F.L.W. 46 (Fla. 1st DCA Dec. 17, 1990); Johnson v. State, 568 So.2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). However, in Paige v. State, 570 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), we reached a contrary conclusion. The Third District also recently rejected the rationale of Barber in Westbrook v. State, 574 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). We adhere to our decision in Paige but recognize conflict with the First District.

Because we find the other issues raised by defendant without merit, we do not address them.

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.

NOTES

[1] § 775.084(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989).

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

576 So.2d 931 (1991)

Timothy E. TUCKER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 90-1478, 90-1479.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

March 28, 1991.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender and Michael S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Nancy Ryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

*932 DIAMANTIS, Judge.

Defendant pled guilty to grand theft of a motor vehicle, section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1989), and nolo contendere to robbery with a firearm, section 812.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1989). Defendant was convicted and sentenced as an habitual felony offender^[1] to 10 years for the grand theft and life with a minimum mandatory of 3 years for the robbery with a firearm. The sentences are to be served concurrently. Defendant claims error in his sentence on the robbery offense. We affirm.

Defendant argues that the court erred in sentencing him for robbery under the habitual offender statute because that statute does not provide for the enhancement of felonies of the first degree punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding life. Defendant cites Barber v. State, 564 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) and its progeny to support this theory. See Gholston v. State, 16 F.L.W. 46 (Fla. 1st DCA Dec. 17, 1990); Johnson v. State, 568 So.2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). However, in Paige v. State, 570 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), we reached a contrary conclusion. The Third District also recently rejected the rationale of Barber in Westbrook v. State, 574 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). We adhere to our decision in Paige but recognize conflict with the First District.

Because we find the other issues raised by defendant without merit, we do not address them.

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.

NOTES

[1] § 775.084(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

576 So. 2d 931, 1991 WL 41011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Timothy E. TUCKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

NOTES

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Timothy E. TUCKER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.