Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Robinson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 27, 1996No. 94-3177Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partErvin, Judge

I concur with all portions of the majority’s opinion except that part affirming appellant’s habitual felony offender (HFO) sentence, insofar as it was based on two prior Georgia robbery convictions, because, in my judgment, one of the convictions is not a “qualified offense,” as required by Florida’s HFO statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1993).

A comparison of the elements in the Georgia and Florida statutes demonstrates that “robbery by sudden snatching” in Georgia is not substantially similar to robbery in Florida. The Georgia statute permits a conviction for simply taking property…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. McCloud v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1976
  2. King v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1994
  3. White v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1996
  4. Andre v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
  5. Watkins v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1993

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API