Seabrook v. State
| Decision Date | 16 December 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 80953,80953 |
| Citation | 629 So.2d 129 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Weekly S642 Marblee SEABROOK, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Carl S. McGinnes, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and James W. Rogers, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
We have for review Seabrook v. State, 608 So.2d 560 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), in which the district court affirmed Seabrook's sentencing as a habitual felony offender pursuant to section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989). The district court of appeal certified the following question as being of great public importance:
DOES SECTION 775.084, FLORIDA STATUTES (1989), DENY EITHER DUE PROCESS OR EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW UNDER EITHER THE FLORIDA OR THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION; OR VIOLATE THE DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS, AS SET FORTH IN THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION?
Seabrook, 608 So.2d at 560. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, Sec. 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
This Court has previously held that section 775.084 does not violate due process or equal protection. Reeves v. State, 612 So.2d 560 (Fla.1992); Ross v. State, 601 So.2d 1190 (Fla.1992). In our opinion in McKnight v. State, 616 So.2d 31 (Fla.1993), we adopted the rationale of King v. State, 597 So.2d 309 (Fla.2d DCA), review denied, 602 So.2d 942 (Fla.1992), and held that a trial judge has the discretion not to sentence a defendant as a habitual felony offender. Therefore, petitioner's contention that the statute violated the doctrine of separation of powers because it deprived trial judges of such discretion necessarily fails.
For the reasons stated above, we answer the certified question in the negative, and approve the decision below.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cotton
...They urge that this provision encroaches on the judiciary's sentencing function, relying on the Court's decision in Seabrook v. State, 629 So.2d 129 (Fla.1993). Since the state attorney's broad charging discretion already embodies any "exception discretion," this argument is unpersuasive. F......
-
King v. State, 93-1261
...to the facial constitutionality of section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989). Section 775.084 was held constitutional in Seabrook v. State, 629 So.2d 129 (Fla.1993). We therefore reject any contention to the The second issue raised by King is whether the trial judge, upon revocation of King'......
-
Mycoff v. Florida
...has expressly upheld the constitutionality of the habitual offender statute. Heath v. State, 648 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 1994); Seabrook v. State, 629 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1999); Merriweather v. State, 609 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 1992).Exh. 14, Vol 2 at 96-97. In addressing the second Rule 3.800(a) Motion, ......
-
Graham v. State, 1D01-1968.
...Court has previously held that the habitual offender statute does not violate a defendant's due process rights. See Seabrook v. State, 629 So.2d 129 (Fla.1993); McKnight v. State, 616 So.2d 31 (Fla.1993). The statute merely provides the trial court with the discretion to impose or not to im......