Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

633 So. 2d 1125

Docket No. 93-946.

Pittman v. State

Anthony Felippe PITTMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 7, 1994.

Rehearing Denied April 18, 1994.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1994-03-07

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 1996

9 state decisions

Relies on 614 So. 2d 455 - Foster v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1994-03-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Lynn A. Williams, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Charlie McCoy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Appellant was sentenced as a habitual felony offender pursuant to section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1991). He appeals the denial of his challenge to the constitutionality of that statute on grounds that it is being discriminatorily *1126 applied to persons of the black race in the First Circuit. In support of the motion, he relies on statistical studies attached to his motion. One such study concluded that "black offenders are habitualized 1.76 times more frequently than similarly situated non-black offenders." We affirm the trial court's ruling because Appellant "has offered nothing to suggest that the state attorney's office acted with purposeful discrimination" in seeking habitualization in his particular case. Foster v. State,614 So.2d 455, 463 (Fla. 1992).

¶5AFFIRMED.

¶6ZEHMER, C.J., and JOANOS and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

/633/so2d/1125 · .json · Public domain