CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...Appellant asserts that under the provisions of Section
849.09(3) and (4), the second offender charge was improper, because his alleged subsequent offenses were not violations of the same provision of the lottery statute as his prior conviction. Further, he argues that the provisions of Section
849.13, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., are inapplicable because the prior and subsequent offenses are not "like offenses" as required by the statute....
...We agree with the contention of the appellant that the enhanced punishment provisions found in subsections (3) and (4) of Section
849.09 relate only to second violations of the paragraphs specified in the subsections. We do not, however, agree with the contention that the second offender provisions of Section
849.13 are inapplicable. *877 We stated in the companion case to the instant case, Andrews v. State,
179 So.2d 575, opinion this date filed (September 16, 1965) the following: "* * * we hold that `like offense' under Section
849.13 means any subsequent violation of the statute denouncing lotteries....
...Thus, it was immaterial which particular portion of Section
849.09 was alleged as having been previously violated by appellant, since a second conviction of any of the offenses listed thereunder would authorize the application of the provisions of Section
849.13." Thus, appellant was convicted under a valid information....
0 red0 yellow2 green0 procedural
Cited as authorityKeenan (1971)phrase: "rule_authority"
Cited as authorityYost (1971)phrase: "rule_authority"
