State
v.
Knickerbocker

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Supreme Court of FloridaMar 25, 1993
616 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1993)

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • Wiley v. State

    …We reverse and remand for resentencing because, as the State concedes, a life felony may not be enhanced.…

  • McBride v. State

    …800(a) when the habitual offender statute in effect at the time of the defendant's offense did not permit…

lock 3 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

No. 80568.

March 25, 1993.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Great Public Importance; First District — Case Nos. 90-3134 90-3312 (Alachua County).

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., James W. Rogers, Bureau Chief and Amelia L. Beisner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for petitioner.

George F. Schaefer, Gainesville, for respondent.


We have for review Knickerbocker v. State, 604 So.2d 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), which certified the following question of great public importance:

May a sentence for a life felony be enhanced pursuant to the provisions of the habitual offender statute?
Id. at 878. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Consistent with Lamont v. State, 610 So.2d 435 (Fla. 1992), we answer in the negative and approve the decision below to the extent it addressed the certified question. We otherwise quash the opinion below and remand for reconsideration in light of State v. Rucker, 613 So.2d 460 (Fla. 1993).

It is so ordered.

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