Raulerson v. State, 589 So. 2d 369

Raulerson v. State

589 So. 2d 369 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1991

Lead Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s first issue without comment. The second issue, whether a sentence for committing a first-degree felony punishable by life may be enhanced under Section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989), has been decided adversely to appellant in Burdick v. State, 584 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (en banc), petition for review filed, No. 78466 (Fla. Aug. 20, 1991). The third issue, whether the violent-felony provisions of section 775.084 violate the constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy and ex post facto laws, has been decided adversely in Perkins v. State, 583 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), petition for review filed, No. 78613 (Fla. Sept. 17, 1991).

AFFIRM.

BARFIELD, J., concurs. ZEHMER, J., specially concurring with written opinion. ERVIN, J., concurring and dissenting with written opinion.

Concurrence Opinion

ZEHMER, Judge

(specially concurring).

I concur in affirmance on all issues. I concur on the third issue only because it was previously decided by this court in Perkins v. State, 583 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), petition for review filed, No. 78613 (Fla. Sept. 17, 1991). Because I have serious concern that section 775.084(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), is facially unconstitutional, my concurrence is made with the same reservations discussed in my special concurring opinion in Hall v. State, 588 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

Concurrence in Part

ERVIN, Judge,

concurring and dissenting.

I agree to affirm on issues one and three. Regarding the issue of whether conviction of a first-degree felony punishable by life is subject to enhancement under the habitual-offender statute, I dissent for the same reasons stated in my dissent in Burdick v. State, 584 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (en banc), petition for review filed, No. 78466 (Fla. Aug. 20, 1991).