Clines v. State
Supreme Court of Florida
912 So. 2d 550 (2005)
Facts
Michael Ray Clines (defendant) pled nolo contendere to the charges of grand theft and resisting arrest with violence. At Clines’s sentencing hearing, the state sought an enhanced penalty under Florida’s recidivist-sentencing statute. The state claimed that under the statute, Clines was both a habitual felony offender and a violent career criminal. These classifications determined the terms of punishment that could be imposed on Clines. For the charge of resisting arrest, the trial court sentenced Clines to (1) 10 years in prison as a habitual felony offender and (2) a mandatory minimum term of 10 years as a violent career criminal. Clines appealed on the ground that the application of multiple recidivist categories for the same conduct violated the prohibition on double jeopardy and defied the legislative intent of the recidivist-sentencing statute. The first district affirmed the sentencing and determined that the application of multiple categories did not violate double jeopardy or legislative intent. However, the first district certified a conflict to the Supreme Court of Florida, as the second district and fourth district had previously determined that the application of multiple categories was not permitted under the statute.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cantero, J.)
Concurrence (Wells, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
