The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D was charged with resisting arrest with violence, grand theft, and two counts of battery on a law enforcement officer. P filed notices to seek both habitual felony offender sentencing and violent career criminal sentencing. D later pled nolo contendere to the resisting arrest and grand theft charges, while P dropped the two counts of battery on a law enforcement officer. At sentencing, P introduced evidence showing that D qualified as a habitual felony offender and a violent career criminal. The trial court applied both designations. Having designated D a habitual felony offender, the court sentenced him to ten years in prison and having designated him a violent career criminal; the court imposed a ten-year mandatory minimum term. D filed a motion arguing that he could not be designated as both a habitual felony offender and a violent career criminal. The trial court denied the motion as facially insufficient. D appealed. D argued that his dual designation violated double jeopardy protections and conflicted with the Legislature's intent. The court affirmed but certified the question to the Supreme Court of Florida.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.