From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Eason

Supreme Court of Florida
Feb 6, 1992
592 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1992)

Summary

approving decision affirming defendant's 25–year sentence as an HVFO and rejecting State's argument that the trial court was required by section 775.084(b)1. to sentence defendant to life in prison with a 15–year mandatory minimum term

Summary of this case from Span v. State

Opinion

No. 78508.

February 6, 1992.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Direct Conflict of Decisions, Third District — Case No. 90-2442 (Dade County).

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Michael J. Neimand, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for petitioner.

John L. Lipinski, Miami, for respondent.


We have for review State v. Eason, 592 So.2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), in which the district court certified conflict with State v. Allen, 573 So.2d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Pittman v. State, 570 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), review denied, 581 So.2d 166 (Fla. 1991); and Donald v. State, 562 So.2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), review denied, 576 So.2d 291 (1991).

We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.

Eason was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender under section 775.084(4)(b)(1), Florida Statutes (1989), to twenty-five years in prison. The State appealed the sentence and the district court affirmed.

The State argues that sentencing under the habitual offender statute is mandatory, not permissive, and thus the trial court was required to sentence the defendant to life in prison without eligibility for release for fifteen years, the maximum penalty set forth in the statute.

We rejected the State's interpretation of the habitual offender statute and disapproved Donald in Burdick v. State, No. 78,466 ___ So.2d ___ (Fla. Feb. 6, 1992), where we held that sentencing under both sections 775.084(4)(a)(1) and 775.084(4)(b)(1) is permissive, not mandatory.

Accordingly, we approve the opinion below and disapprove Allen and Pittman to the extent they are inconsistent with our opinion in Burdick.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, C.J., and McDONALD, BARKETT, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.

OVERTON, J., dissents.


Summaries of

State v. Eason

Supreme Court of Florida
Feb 6, 1992
592 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1992)

approving decision affirming defendant's 25–year sentence as an HVFO and rejecting State's argument that the trial court was required by section 775.084(b)1. to sentence defendant to life in prison with a 15–year mandatory minimum term

Summary of this case from Span v. State

rejecting State's argument that trial court was required to sentence habitual violent felony offender to life term without eligibility for release for fifteen years; approving sentence of twenty-five years imposed by trial court and affirmed by district court

Summary of this case from Newell v. State

rejecting State's argument that trial court was required to sentence habitual violent felony offender to life term without eligibility for release for fifteen years; approving sentence of twenty-five years imposed by trial court and affirmed by district court

Summary of this case from State v. Hudson
Case details for

State v. Eason

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER, v. WILLIAM CHARLES EASON, RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Feb 6, 1992

Citations

592 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1992)

Citing Cases

State v. Morales

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Burdick v. State, 594 So.2d 267 (Fla. 1992); State v. Eason, 592 So.2d 676 (Fla. 1992);…

State v. Kendrick

does not make imposition of a life sentence mandatory but rather makes it permissive with the trial court.…