Iman v. State, 784 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Iman v. State, 784 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Denyer v. State (fladistctapp, 2003-05-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" Denyer v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Iman v. State, 784 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)(appellant who was sentenced under the habitual felony offender statute and the violent career criminal statute has shown no double jeopardy violation because he will serve only one sentence with a minimum mandatory term); compare Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655 (Fla.2000)(concurrent 15-year sentence as a PRR and a habitual felony offender did not violate double jeopardy, but violated the prison releasee reoffender statute where an applicable longer concurrent term should have been imposed).
discussed Cited "see" Works v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Iman v. State, 784 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (involving a double jeopardy analysis); Dennis v. State, 784 So.2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (involving an analysis under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000)).
Dean Fuller IMAN, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
1D00-2848.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
May 29, 2001.
784 So. 2d 1265
Per Curiam.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and David P. Gauldin, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Karen Armstrong, Assistant Attorney General, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Although the trial court sentenced appellant under the habitual felony offender statute, section 775.084(1)(a), (4)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), and the violent career criminal statute, section 775.084(1)(d), (4)(d), Florida Statutes (1999), appellant has shown no double jeopardy violation because he will serve only one sentence with a minimum mandatory term, as provided for by the violent career criminal statute. Cf. Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655 (Fla.2000) (holding that two concurrent sentences, pursuant to the prison releasee reoffender statute and the habitual felony offender statute, imposed upon appellant for a single offense, do not violate the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution).

AFFIRMED.

BARFIELD, C.J., KAHN and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.