Virgil v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Virgil v. State

577 So. 2d 718, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3805, 1991 WL 54157

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 11, 1991

DocketNo. 90-2540

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 577 So. 2d 718 (Virgil 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

Virgil v. State, 577 So. 2d 718, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3805, 1991 WL 54157 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find that the prosecutor’s statement, if improper, was not so egregious or prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial. There was overwhelming evidence introduced against the appellant, and the trial court did not reversibly err in overruling appellant’s objection to the prosecutor’s closing statement.

We further reject appellant’s contention that the habitual offender statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989) is unconstitutional. In Barber v. State, 564 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), we upheld the 1987 version of section 775.084, Florida Statutes. In Love v. State, 569 So.2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), we found the analysis used in Barber to be equally applicable to the 1988 statute. See also Pittman v. State, 570 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); King v. State, 557 So.2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), rev. denied, 564 So.2d 1086 (Fla. 1990); and Arnold v. State, 566 So.2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Because the changes occurring in the 1989 statute would not affect the statute’s constitutionality, the analysis used in Barber is also applicable to the 1989 version.

AFFIRMED.

SHIVERS, C.J., and NIMMONS and MINER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We find that the prosecutor’s statement, if improper, was not so egregious or prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial. There was overwhelming evidence introduced against the appellant, and the trial court did not reversibly err in overruling appellant’s objection to the prosecutor’s closing statement.

We further reject appellant’s contention that the habitual offender statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989) is unconstitutional. In Barber v. State, 564 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), we upheld the 1987 version of section 775.084, Florida Statutes. In Love v. State, 569 So.2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), we found the analysis used in Barber to be equally applicable to the 1988 statute. See also Pittman v. State, 570 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); King v. State, 557 So.2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), rev. denied, 564 So.2d 1086 (Fla. 1990); and Arnold v. State, 566 So.2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Because the changes occurring in the 1989 statute would not affect the statute’s constitutionality, the analysis used in Barber is also applicable to the 1989 version.

AFFIRMED.

SHIVERS, C.J., and NIMMONS and MINER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

577 So. 2d 718, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3805, 1991 WL 54157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/virgil-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack