Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

837 So. 2d 394

Docket No. SC02-984.

State v. Darst

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Steven DARST, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided December 19, 2002.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 2002-12-19

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 2017

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“We have for review the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal, Darst v. State, 816 So.2d 680 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), both declaring section 784.07 of the Florida Statutes (1999) to be an enhancement statute, and certifying conflict with Mills v. State, 773 So.2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. This Court granted review in Mills, and addressed the issue presented here. See Mills v. State, 822 So.2d 1284 (Fla. 2002). There we held section 784.07 of the Florida Statutes is a reclassification statute, not an enhancement statute, and thus creates a substantive crime. See id. at 1287 . As the district court’s holding is inconsistent with this Court’s decision in Mills, its decision is quashed and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with Mills.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 214 So. 3d 657 - Gangapersad Ramroop v. State of Florida

Relies on 822 So. 2d 1284 - Mills v. State · Mills v. State · 816 So. 2d 680 - Darst v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2002-12-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*395 Richard E. Doran, Attorney General, and Kellie A. Nielan and Anthony J. Golden, Assistant Attorneys General, Daytona Beach, FL, for Petitioner.

¶2James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and James R. Wulchak, Chief, Appellate Division, Assistant Public Defender, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, FL, for Respondent.

¶3LEWIS, J.

¶4We have for review the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal, Darst v. State,816 So.2d 680 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), both declaring section 784.07 of the Florida Statutes (1999) to be an enhancement statute, and certifying conflict with Mills v. State,773 So.2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

¶5This Court granted review in Mills, and addressed the issue presented here. See Mills v. State,822 So.2d 1284 (Fla.2002). There we held section 784.07 of the Florida Statutes is a reclassification statute, not an enhancement statute, and thus creates a substantive crime. See id. at 1287. As the district court's holding is inconsistent with this Court's decision in Mills, its decision is quashed and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with Mills.

¶6It is so ordered.

¶7ANSTEAD, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, PARIENTE, QUINCE, and CANTERO, JJ., concur.

/837/so2d/394 · .json · Public domain