History
  • No items yet
midpage
Wheaton v. State
795 So. 2d 967
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1999
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of armed robbery. On appeal, he seeks reversal on several grounds. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Appellant argues the trial judge erred in restricting consultation with defense counsel during a short recess taken while he was testifying. In light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, the error was harmless. He also argues that prejudicial arguments by the prosecutor during closing arguments denied him a fair trial. Again, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, any error was harmless.

Appellant raises numerous constitutional challenges to section 775.082(8), Florida Statutes (1997), the Prison Releasee Reof-fender Punishment Act, under which he was sentenced upon his conviction for armed robbery. Appellant’s arguments are without merit. Turner v. State, 745 So.2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Woods v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D831, 740 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Plain v. State, 720 So.2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), review denied, 727 So.2d 909 (Fla.1999).

As in Woods v. State, supra, we certify the following question as one of great public importance:

DOES THE PRISON RELEASEE REOFFENDER PUNISHMENT ACT, CODIFIED AS SECTION 775.082(8), FLORIDA STATUTES (1997), VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS CLAUSE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION?

AFFIRMED.

BARFIELD, C.J., LAWRENCE and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.

Case Details

Case Name: Wheaton v. State
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Oct 25, 1999
Citation: 795 So. 2d 967
Docket Number: No. 98-164
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.