State v. Cantrell
| Decision Date | 08 July 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 60721,60721 |
| Citation | 417 So.2d 260 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. David Mark CANTRELL, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Lawrence A. Kaden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for petitioner.
David M. Cantrell, in pro. per.
Cantrell successfully appealed a trial court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief wherein he contended that the imposition of separate sentences for the offenses of burglary and possession of burglary tools was improper. When it reversed the trial court's denial the First District Court of Appeal certified the following question as being of great public importance:
The Supreme Court of the United States having ruled in Albernaz v. United States [450 U.S. 333, 101 S.Ct. 1137, 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981) ], that the imposition of consecutive sentences for violation in one criminal transaction of two separate statutes is not precluded by the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, does the Supreme Court of Florida desire to adopt the same construction or a more restrictive construction to Article I, Section 9, of the Florida Constitution?
Cantrell v. State, 405 So.2d 986, 990 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla.Const.
In our recent decision of Borges v. State, 415 So.2d 1265, (Fla.1982), we held that it is permissible to impose consecutive sentences for violations committed during one criminal transaction of two or more separate statutes. To answer the instant question, we apply and construe article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution in the same manner that the United States Supreme Court applied the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution in Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 101 S.Ct. 1137, 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981), as it relates to consecutive sentences for violation in one criminal transaction of two separate statutes. The decision of the district court in Cantrell is quashed.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Torrence v. State
...comparison of the essential constituent elements of criminal offenses, which is the true Blockburger test, is the view in State v. Cantrell, 417 So.2d 260 (Fla.1982); Borges v. State, 415 So.2d 1265 (Fla.1982), the supreme court Bell case (Bell v. State, 437 So.2d 1057 (Fla. 1983), the diss......
-
Rodriquez v. State, 82-570
...2d DCA 1978). See also State v. Gray, 435 So.2d 816 (Fla.1983); Gay v. State, 432 So.2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).2 See also State v. Cantrell, 417 So.2d 260 (Fla.1982).3 See Bartee v. State, 401 So.2d 890 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).4 A lesser included offense is a criminal offense all of the essenti......
-
Baker v. State
...same manner as the United States Supreme Court applied the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution in Albernaz. State v. Cantrell, 417 So.2d 260 (Fla.1982). In the present case, the two crimes with which Baker was charged were (1) premeditated murder, and (2) use of a firearm in t......
-
Giddings v. State
...comparison of the essential constituent elements of criminal offenses, which is the true Blockburger test, is the view in State v. Cantrell, 417 So.2d 260 (Fla.1982); Borges v. State, 415 So.2d 1265 (Fla.1982); the supreme court Bell case (Bell v. State, 437 So.2d 1057 (Fla.1983)); the diss......