History
  • No items yet
midpage
Ward v. State
589 So. 2d 467
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1991
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine. The trial court did not err in giving the flight instruction under the circumstances of this case. See Payne v. State, 541 So.2d 699, 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The constitutional challenge to the 1989 amendment of the habitual offender statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989), has been decided adversely to appellant in Pittman v. State, 570 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Barber v. State, 564 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Appellant could have been sentenced as an habitual offender under section 775.084 as it read prior to the 1989 amendment, so there is no reason to address the argument that the 1989 law violates the single-subject rule. McNeil v. State, 588 So.2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); King v. State, 585 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Wright v. State, 579 So.2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Cf. Johnson v. State, 589 So.2d 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

ZEHMER, BARFIELD, and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Ward v. State
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Dec 2, 1991
Citation: 589 So. 2d 467
Docket Number: No. 91-1066
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.