Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

601 So. 2d 549

Docket No. 79311.

State v. Arndt

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Robert ARNDT, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided July 2, 1992.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1992-07-02

Relies on 595 So. 2d 22 - State v. Barnes · 576 So. 2d 758 - Barnes v. State · Arndt v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1992-07-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently April 2012 · most notably Glaubius v. State (1997), 262 F. Supp. 2d 1334 - Eclipse Medical, Inc. v. American Hydro-Surgical Instruments, Inc. (1999)

1 federal appellate · 71 state decisions

640199220002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*550 Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Bradley R. Bischoff, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for petitioner.

¶2Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for respondent.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4We review Arndt v. State,600 So.2d 1131 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), in which the district court reversed Arndt's habitual offender sentence and remanded for resentencing based on its decision in Barnes v. State,576 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), quashed,595 So.2d 22 (Fla. 1992). As it did in Barnes, the district court certified the following question as being of great public importance:

WHETHER SECTION 775.084(1)(a)(1), FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP. 1988), WHICH DEFINES HABITUAL FELONY OFFENDERS AS THOSE WHO HAVE "PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED OF TWO OR MORE FELONIES," REQUIRES THAT EACH OF THE FELONIES BE COMMITTED AFTER CONVICTION FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PREVIOUS OFFENSE?

¶5600 So.2d at 1131. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

¶6In State v. Barnes,595 So.2d 22 (Fla. 1992), we recently answered the question in the negative. Accordingly, on the authority of Barnes, we quash the decision under review and remand for further proceedings consistent with our decision in that case.

¶7It is so ordered.

¶8BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.

/601/so2d/549 · .json · Public domain