State v. Villafane, s. 83-751
| Decision Date | 25 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 83-751,83-752,s. 83-751 |
| Citation | 444 So.2d 71 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Manuel VILLAFANE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Sharon Lee Stedman, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Bruce L. Randall, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
This is a consolidated appeal of two identical orders, granting appellee's motions to dismiss informations against him.
Appellee, a clerk in an "adult" bookstore, was arrested and charged with possession of obscene material with intent to sell, in violation of Section 847.011(1), Florida Statutes (1981). He pleaded nolo contendere but reserved the right to appeal denial of certain pretrial motions, under Rule 9.140(b) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such appeal was timely filed, and was still pending when appellee was arrested on two additional occasions on similar charges. However, whereas he was charged in the first instance with a misdemeanor, the subject informations here each charged him with a third degree felony, because Section 847.011(1)(a) provides for the enhanced charge for one previously convicted of violating the same subsection. In each of the two new cases, appellee moved to dismiss on the ground that the prior conviction was not final and therefore could not be the basis for the felony charge. The court heard both motions simultaneously and thereafter issued identical orders in both cases granting the motions to dismiss. The state timely appealed these orders and this court consolidated the two appeals.
The issue is whether the trial court erred in dismissing informations involving charges enhanced because of prior conviction, where the prior conviction was under appeal. We conclude that it did not, therefore we affirm. While there appears to be no case on all fours with the instant ones, there is a line of cases sufficiently parallel to justify analogizing. Here the enhancement is of the crime charged; there, of the punishment to be imposed. The statutory provision at the base of the present issue, Section 847.011(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), raises a second offense of possession of obscene matter with intent to sell from a misdemeanor to a third degree felony. In the other line of cases the habitual criminal statute is involved. Now found at Section 775.084, that statute provides more severe penalties for felons and misdemeanants who are recidivists in certain specified respects. Under that statute the court holds a separate proceeding to determine whether the enhanced punishments are necessary for the protection of the public, and whether defendant is a habitual criminal. § 775.084(3).
In Joyner v. State, 158 Fla. 806, 30 So.2d 304 (Fla.1947), the Florida Supreme Court looked to precedents of other states to derive the following principle:
[B]efore a prior conviction may be relied upon to enhance the punishment in a subsequent case such prior conviction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Finelli
...affirmed by an appellate court if an appeal has been taken. See Delguidice v. State, 554 So.2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); State v. Villafane, 444 So.2d 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Garrett v. State, 335 So.2d 876 (Fla. 4th DCA Construing statutes which are not charge or sentencing enhancement statu......
-
Wheeler v. State, 84-882
...304, 305 (1947). The trial court should have dismissed the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon charge. Cf. State v. Villafane, 444 So.2d 71, 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Coleman v. State, 281 So.2d 226, 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). Consequently, we reverse the trial court and set aside the j......
-
Delguidice v. State, 88-2241
...to this court, thus not final, at the time of sentencing. Reliance on it therefore constitutes reversible error. See State v. Villafane, 444 So.2d 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). We reject appellant's contention that the trial court must reduce his findings in support of habitual offender status to......
-
Anderson v. State, 93-1046
...cannot be a predicate to a finding of habitual offender status. Delguidice v. State, 554 So.2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); State v. Villafane, 444 So.2d 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Accordingly, we reverse appellant's sentence and remand for Before appellant's sentencing hearing, the trial court ent......