Clark v. State, 88-1548
| Decision Date | 08 September 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-1548,88-1548 |
| Citation | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2098,530 So.2d 519 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2098 Warren Walter CLARK, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Sharon Bradley of Daley and Miller, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
No Response for respondents.
Petitioner seeks our writ of habeas corpus 1 alleging he suffered ineffective assistance of appellate counsel when his lawyer filed an Anders 2 brief in this court and failed to raise an alleged double jeopardy violation. We deny the writ.
When the court-appointed appellate counsel filed his brief he said, pursuant to Anders, that he could find nothing to appeal about and asked to be allowed to withdraw as counsel. He said that the only basis upon which petitioner sought a judgment of acquittal, as a matter of law from the trial court, was the alleged lack of proof of premeditated design. No double jeopardy issue had been raised below. That notwithstanding, the records of this court reveal that this court sua sponte raised and considered the double jeopardy issue and, based upon law current at the time, decided against petitioner. See Vause v. State, 476 So.2d 141 (Fla.1985) and State v. Rodriquez, 500 So.2d 120 (Fla.1986).
After this petitioner's case was decided on plenary appeal our Supreme Court made its decision in Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla.1987) which would have affected this petitioner had it been the law when his appeal was considered. Carawan was not the law then and it is not the law now because the legislature has amended section 775.021(4) to permit multiple convictions for crimes arising out of a "single evil." In this case petitioner shot a single shot and was convicted and sentenced for attempted murder one, 3 shooting into an occupied building 4 and being a person engaged in a criminal offense with a weapon. 5
Nothing in Carawan makes it applicable to this case now, in our opinion, because it was not specifically retroactive to prior convictions, did not mention Vause which was directly on point and the legislature has spoken to make clear its intent in section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes. See Ch. 88.131, sec. 7 (FLW Session Law Rptr. July 4, 1988). 6
PETITION DENIED.
3 §§ 782.04(1)(a)1, 777.04(4)(a), 775.087, Fla.Stat.
4 § 790.19, Fla.Stat.
5 § 790.07, Fla.Stat.
6 See also Marshall v. Dugger, 526 So.2d 143 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) ().
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...1. and 3. in that statute. See note 5 herein.2 But see contra: Teemer v. State, 531 So.2d 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Clark v. State, 530 So.2d 519 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).3 But see: Harper v. State, 537 So.2d 1131 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).4 The substantive analysis of the relationship between certain ......
-
Brown v. State, 88-983
...1988); Sapp v. State, 522 So.2d 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Contra, Teemer v. State, 531 So.2d 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Clark v. State, 530 So.2d 519 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). See also Bogard v. State, 451 So.2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Alvarez v. State, 445 So.2d 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) and Jacks......
-
Denmark v. State
...and lists the only three instances where an offense may be treated as a lesser included offense." Id. See also Clark v. State, 530 So.2d 519 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), in which the court noted that the legislature had spoken to make clear its Under amended section 775.021(4), multiple punishments......
-
Psihogios v. State, 88-2305
...section 775.021(4), as amended, had a substantial impact on prior supreme court opinions, including Carawan. See also Clark v. State, 530 So.2d 519 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). We recognize that where a single act offense is not part of a series of acts, the use of the phrase, "in the course of one......