Cobb v. State

Sarah Jane COBB, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 8, 1990.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1990-10-08

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1991

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“DOES A JEOPARDY VIOLATION RESULT FROM THE IMPOSITION OF A PROBATIONARY SPLIT SENTENCE WHEN THE LEGISLATURE HAS NOT EXPLICITLY AUTHORIZED THAT DISPOSITION IN THE SENTENCING ALTERNATIVES FOR § 921.087, FLA. STAT.?”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 568 So. 2d 1346 - Hall v. State, 568 So. 2d 1346 - Curry v. State

Relies on Hayes v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1990-10-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 *555 David Davis, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Jim Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4AFFIRMED. Huff v. State,566 So.2d 945 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1990); Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315. We certify the following question to the supreme court as one of great public importance:

DOES A DOUBLE JEOPARDY VIOLATION RESULT FROM THE IMPOSITION OF A PROBATIONARY SPLIT SENTENCE WHEN THE LEGISLATURE HAS NOT EXPLICITLY AUTHORIZED THAT DISPOSITION IN THE SENTENCING ALTERNATIVES FOR SECTION 921.087, FLORIDA STATUTES.

¶5SHIVERS, C.J., and JOANOS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.