Arnold v. State, 89-02994
| Decision Date | 22 August 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-02994,89-02994 |
| Citation | 566 So.2d 37 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D2136 Charles Edward ARNOLD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Andrea Steffen, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corces, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
The appellant challenges his sentence of twenty years' incarceration followed by ten years' probation for the sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school. He argues that his enhanced sentence under the amended habitual offender statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), violates his rights of equal protection and due process of law under the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 2 of the Florida Constitution. We affirm.
The legislature amended the habitual offender statute, effective October 1, 1988, and deleted the requirement that the trial court find it necessary for the protection of the public to impose the enhanced sentence. See § 775.084(3), Fla.Stat. (1987). The appellant claims that the deletion of this requirement violates his right to equal protection of the laws because (1) the habitual offender statute creates a classification that is not rationally related to a legitimate state purpose; (2) no rational basis exists for the state's decisions to seek enhanced punishment in some cases, but not in others; and (3) the statute contains no objective criteria to determine who will be sentenced as a habitual offender and who will be sentenced pursuant to the sentencing guidelines.
The classification of habitual offenders is rationally related to the legitimate state interests of punishing recidivists more severely than first time offenders and protecting the public by incarcerating career criminals. See Eutsey v. State, 383 So.2d 219, 223 (Fla.1980); Roberts v. State, 559 So.2d 289, 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); King v. State, 557 So.2d 899, 902 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The appellant argues that the state has arbitrarily applied the statute, but the record contains no facts to support this allegation. Furthermore, the state need prove only objective criteria for a defendant to be classified as a habitual felony offender: two or more of the requisite felony convictions within the prescribed time frame that have not been pardoned or the subject of post-conviction relief. See § 775.084(1)(a), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1988). Thus, section 775.084 does not create an arbitrary classification and does not violate the appellant's constitutional right to equal protection of the laws.
The appellant argues next that the amended statute unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof to the defendant in violation of his right to due process of law. Section 775.084(4)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), provides, "If the court decides that imposition of sentence under this section is not necessary for the protection of the public, sentence shall be imposed without regard to this section." The appellant claims that the foregoing language requires a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. State, 93-1261
...protection of the public from further criminal activity." Newman v. State, 575 So.2d 724, 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); see Arnold v. State, 566 So.2d 37, 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), review denied, 576 So.2d 284 (Fla.1991).4 See Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203, 104 S.Ct. 2305, 81 L.Ed.2d 164 (1984). C......
-
Johnson v. State
...1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Barber v. State, 564 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 576 So.2d 284 (Fla.1990); Arnold v. State, 566 So.2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), review denied, 576 So.2d 284 (Fla.1991); King v. State, 557 So.2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 564 So.2d 1086 (Fla.1990......
-
London v. State, 92-2048
...Smith v. State, 567 So.2d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (due process, equal protection), rev. denied, 576 So.2d 291 (Fla.1991); Arnold v. State, 566 So.2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (due process, equal protection), rev. denied, 576 So.2d 284 (Fla.1991); Barber v. State, 564 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA) (du......
-
Marshall v. State, 92-126
...583 So.2d 1038 (Fla.1991); Smith v. State, 567 So.2d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA1990), rev. denied, 576 So.2d 291 (Fla.1991); Arnold v. State, 566 So.2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA1990), rev. denied, 576 So.2d 284 (Fla.1991); Barber v. State, 564 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 576 So.2d 284 (Fla.1990); Ro......