Summary
holding that the HVFO statute was constitutional upon challenges that the act was inequitable, subject to arbitrary and capricious application, and violated double jeopardy and citing Tillman v. State, 609 So.2d 1295 (Fla. 1992), and Ross v. State, 601 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 1992), for the same propositions
Summary of this case from Gudinas v. StateOpinion
No. 80199.
November 25, 1992.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Escambia County, Nickolas P. Geeker, J.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Charlie McCoy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
We have for review Warren v. State, 601 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), in which the district court affirmed Warren's sentence as a habitual violent felony offender and certified the following question as being of great public importance:
Is section 775.084(1)(b), the habitual violent felony offender statute, unconstitutional because: (1) it is inequitable and subject to arbitrary and capricious application in violation of article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution and the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and (2) it violates the constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy?Id. at 1253. We answer both portions of the question in the negative and approve the decision of the district court, in accordance with our decisions in Tillman v. State, 609 So.2d 1295 (Fla. 1992), and Ross v. State, 601 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 1992).
We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.