Walsh v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Walsh v. State

579 So. 2d 908, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4977, 1991 WL 87946

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 30, 1991

DocketNo. 90-853

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 579 So. 2d 908 (Walsh 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

Walsh v. State, 579 So. 2d 908, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4977, 1991 WL 87946 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

GOSHORN, Judge.

George William Walsh appeals his convictions for trafficking in cocaine,¹ conspiracy to traffic,² and sale of a controlled substance ³ as well as his sentence as an habitual offender.⁴ We affirm the convictions, but reverse and remand the sentence because the defendant’s habitual offender status was predicated on three prior felony convictions occurring on the same date.

Because the defendant committed the offenses for which he is being sentenced on July 7 and July 11, 1989, the 1988 version of the habitual offender statute governs. This court has previously held that section 775.084(l)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988)⁵ requires sequential or successive convictions, in the sense that the first conviction must have occurred prior to the commission of the second offense. Taylor v. State, 558 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). A like result was reached by our sister courts in Barnes v. State, 576 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) and Walker v. State, 567 So.2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

Convictions AFFIRMED; Sentence REVERSED and REMANDED for resentenc-ing.

GRIFFIN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

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

GOSHORN, Judge.

George William Walsh appeals his convictions for trafficking in cocaine,¹ conspiracy to traffic,² and sale of a controlled substance ³ as well as his sentence as an habitual offender.⁴ We affirm the convictions, but reverse and remand the sentence because the defendant’s habitual offender status was predicated on three prior felony convictions occurring on the same date.

Because the defendant committed the offenses for which he is being sentenced on July 7 and July 11, 1989, the 1988 version of the habitual offender statute governs. This court has previously held that section 775.084(l)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988)⁵ requires sequential or successive convictions, in the sense that the first conviction must have occurred prior to the commission of the second offense. Taylor v. State, 558 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). A like result was reached by our sister courts in Barnes v. State, 576 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) and Walker v. State, 567 So.2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

Convictions AFFIRMED; Sentence REVERSED and REMANDED for resentenc-ing.

GRIFFIN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

579 So. 2d 908, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4977, 1991 WL 87946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walsh-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack